Re: error in server-running-p on M$

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 19:30, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:

> A config var doesn't sound right.  Programmatically, there's no need to
> do anything special.  The problem is for interactive use. I don't have
> a good solution to propose just now, we could just say "to force-start
> a sever first do M-x server-force-delete and then M-x server-mode".

If you're not going to worry about the non-interactive use, there's no
need of using another command. Ulrich's original proposal, asking the
user, would be better IMHO.  (Of course, noninteractive == t would
turn it off.)

> That sounds about right.  The doc could simply say "t, nil, other" where
> "other" means that we're not sure and the value returned might give
> a hint about why we're not sure.

Sorry, I don't understand. Do you mean that the documentation would
say "t, nil, other", but we would return t, nil, and other values that
give a hint (like not-sure, or remote), or do you mean that we return
t, nil, other, and the caller must know what to do? I prefer the
second option.

> As for process name, I'd rather not check the name of the process.

I'd guess (out of the blue sky) than in a heavily used system the
probability of a process ID collision between a long-dead process and
a new one is significant. I'd feel safer checking the name and adding
a note to the docstring about the dangers of running Emacs servers
with atypical names. But it is your call, I'll implement what you
decide.

    Juanma