[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?
From: |
Ihor Radchenko |
Subject: |
Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else? |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Jun 2022 11:29:23 +0800 |
Ivar Fredholm <freddyholms@protonmail.com> writes:
> A session-less block can be executed by starting a session with a special
> name (say "*none") which always gets killed after block execution is
> completed. For interpreter-less languages, we could use the shell as an
> interpreter (for instance, if we wanted to execute C, we could just start a
> shell, and send it the gcc command to compile and execute). Would this not
> cut down the amount of code that needs to be maintained and uniformize the
> existing code?
Feel free to compare ob-eval.el and ob-comint.el. Their functionality is
not equivalent. In particular ob-eval.el has a better handling of
errors.
If you find a way to unify the two without loosing the functionality, it
will be welcome.
Best,
Ihor
- We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Ivar Fredholm, 2022/06/25
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?,
Ihor Radchenko <=
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Ivar Fredholm, 2022/06/26
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/06/27
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Tom Gillespie, 2022/06/27
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, Tim Cross, 2022/06/27
- Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?, John Kitchin, 2022/06/27