GNU bug report logs - #25671
Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 25671 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 25671 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:14:41 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi bug-gnu-emacs,

Since version 22 Emacs lets scripts begin with a shebang line:

  #!/usr/bin/emacs --script
  ;; Some ELisp code here

This breaks if Emacs isn't installed in /usr/bin, though.  Thus, one would want to write this:

  #!/usr/bin/env emacs --script
  ;; Some ELisp code here

But this doesn't work (env doesn't split its arguments), and it also breaks even if one is happy with hardcoding /usr/bin/emacs but tries to pass more than one argument (think -Q and --script).  Thus one writes this:

  #!/bin/sh
  ":"; exec emacs -Q --script "$0" "$@" # -*- mode: emacs-lisp; lexical-binding: t; -*-

(See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6238331/emacs-shell-scripts-how-to-put-initial-options-into-the-script/6259330#6259330)

This isn't pretty.  Could we set up emacs to assume --script and possibly -Q when started as "elisp", or "emacs-script", or some other name (that is, could we make it so that invoking emacs with argv[0] = ".../elisp" starts emacs -Q --script)? (And ideally Emacs would ignore all options after the script's name, to let the script itself process them).

Thanks!
Clément.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:27:26 -0500

This seems like a duplicate of https://debbugs.gnu.org/20682 .

(IMO a big, unwieldy text editor that is never going to be a sensible
alternative to bash, perl, python etc for scripting.)

Message #13 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:32:32 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2017-02-09 16:27, Glenn Morris wrote:
> This seems like a duplicate of https://debbugs.gnu.org/20682 .
> 
> (IMO a big, unwieldy text editor that is never going to be a sensible
> alternative to bash, perl, python etc for scripting.)

Partly; thanks for the pointer! That thread still assumes that you can pass an argument to Emacs, though, which isn't always the case (e.g. if you want to use /usr/bin/env).

Clément.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #16 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:37:39 +0200

> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:14:41 -0500
> 
> Could we set up emacs to assume --script and possibly -Q when started as "elisp", or "emacs-script", or some other name (that is, could we make it so that invoking emacs with argv[0] = ".../elisp" starts emacs -Q --script)? (And ideally Emacs would ignore all options after the script's name, to let the script itself process them).

I believe changing the program behavior depending on how it was named
in the command that invoked it is against GNU coding standards.

Message #19 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:17:00 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2017-02-10 02:37, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
>> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:14:41 -0500
>>
>> Could we set up emacs to assume --script and possibly -Q when started as "elisp", or "emacs-script", or some other name (that is, could we make it so that invoking emacs with argv[0] = ".../elisp" starts emacs -Q --script)? (And ideally Emacs would ignore all options after the script's name, to let the script itself process them).
> 
> I believe changing the program behavior depending on how it was named
> in the command that invoked it is against GNU coding standards.

What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary?

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #22 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:02:28 +0200

> Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:17:00 -0500
> 
> > I believe changing the program behavior depending on how it was named
> > in the command that invoked it is against GNU coding standards.
> 
> What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary?

What about it?

Message #25 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:45:55 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2017-02-10 10:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:17:00 -0500
>>
>>> I believe changing the program behavior depending on how it was named
>>> in the command that invoked it is against GNU coding standards.
>>
>> What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary?
> 
> What about it?

Would that be OK? Could it work?  I thought it would make implementation simpler to just make the emacs binary ct differently based on how its invoked, but if that's not OK then could we distribute a separate "elisp" or "emacs-script" binary that can be used in a shebang line?

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #28 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:58:29 +0200

> Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:45:55 -0500
> 
> >>> I believe changing the program behavior depending on how it was named
> >>> in the command that invoked it is against GNU coding standards.
> >>
> >> What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary?
> > 
> > What about it?
> 
> Would that be OK? Could it work?

Yes, it will.  Although distributing two large binaries might be
overkill.  (All that just to make shell scripts slightly simpler?)

Message #31 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:32:19 -0500

Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:

>>> What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary?
>> 
>> What about it?
>
> Would that be OK?

I would not like installing Emacs to pollute my PATH with trivial things
like that. In https://debbugs.gnu.org/20682#11 I mentioned a
standard solution for this issue as used by perl, ruby, etc;
namely a -x switch.

Message #34 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:21:15 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2017-02-10 12:32, Glenn Morris wrote:
> Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:
> 
>>>> What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary?
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> Would that be OK?
> 
> I would not like installing Emacs to pollute my PATH with trivial things
> like that. In https://debbugs.gnu.org/20682#11 I mentioned a
> standard solution for this issue as used by perl, ruby, etc;
> namely a -x switch.

Can you explain how that works wrt the problem I mentioned in my original post? "#!/usr/bin/env emacs -x" doesn't work, does it?

Clément

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #37 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:21:33 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 2017-02-10 11:58, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel <at> live.com>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:45:55 -0500
>>
>>>>> I believe changing the program behavior depending on how it was named
>>>>> in the command that invoked it is against GNU coding standards.
>>>>
>>>> What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary?
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> Would that be OK? Could it work?
> 
> Yes, it will.  Although distributing two large binaries might be
> overkill.  (All that just to make shell scripts slightly simpler?)

Right; that's why I thought the "two possible names for the same binary" approach was nice :/
It would make it possible to run elisp command line programs in Windows without a batch script wrapper, and it would make these scripts nicer in GNU/Linux and macOS.  But arguably that's still a limited benefit.  If there's no way to reuse the Emacs binary (that is, if there's no way to make "elisp" just be a wrapper around "emacs"), then I think we should close this issue.

Cheers,
Clément.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #40 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>, 20682 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:01:10 +0200

Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> OTOH I'd be happy to see a new argument that lets you provide various
>> args as one.  E.g. "emacs --args=-Q,--script" which would be more
>> generally useful to deal with the limit of only one arg in shebang.
>> Given the size limit of shebang lines, we'd also want this extra arg to
>> be shortish.
>>
>> An alternative would be to combine --args and --script, so you could
>> say "emacs --script=-Q" to get what you're asking for.
>
> Apparently it's somewhat conventional (perl, ruby) to use "-x" for this
> purpose. A nice write-up at
>
> https://github.com/smikes/node/blob/minus-x-switch/doc/Minus-X-Switch-Proposal.md
>
> Amazingly, "-x" is available as an Emacs command-line switch...

I think that sounds really attractive, so I've added this to Emacs 29.
The new -x switch is like --script, but will kill Emacs when it reaches
the end of the script, and return the value of the final form as the
return value, so you can say use 0 at the end to signal success to the
caller.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #45 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>, 20682 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 00:14:53 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> > Amazingly, "-x" is available as an Emacs command-line switch...
>
> I think that sounds really attractive, so I've added this to Emacs 29.
> The new -x switch is like --script, but will kill Emacs when it reaches
> the end of the script, and return the value of the final form as the
> return value, so you can say use 0 at the end to signal success to the
> caller.

Thanks - but it doesn't work correctly for me.  Contrarily to --script,
my init file is being loaded with -x.  Does that work correctly for you,
Lars?

TIA,

Michael.

Message #48 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>, 20682 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 14:05:13 +0200

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de> writes:

> Thanks - but it doesn't work correctly for me.  Contrarily to --script,
> my init file is being loaded with -x.  Does that work correctly for you,
> Lars?

Nope.  Should be fixed now.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #51 received at 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 25671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>, 20682 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 04:08:55 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Nope.  Should be fixed now.

Better - thanks.

Michael.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.