"Thompson, David" <dthomps...@worcester.edu> writes: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer > <taylanbayi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> "Thompson, David" <dthomps...@worcester.edu> writes: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I guess we must still support -E for compatibility. Probably it should >>>> do an implicit ‘sh -c’? >>> >>> This introduces implementation issues. What if a user provides both a >>> -E command *and* a command after '--'? What's the sane thing to do? >>> >>> I also don't feel strongly that we need to keep flags around for >>> compatibility this early in the game, given that we are alpha software >>> and such. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> I thought it would be nice to keep also for convenience... >> >> -E 'foo' is somewhat nicer than -- sh -c 'foo'. > > But this is not a very common case (citing my own personal experience > and sudo, ssh, and other programs that use this pattern), and now we > have to deal with precedence rules in the argument parser. If we have > to keep -E, then I would rather not implement the '--' stuff.
Well never mind then, I don't have a strong opinion. I used -E 'make && make check' frequently in the recent past but meh, I'll set up some aliases in worst case, or finally integrate M-x compile with a dir-local compile-command into my workflow. Taylan
