From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: org-program-exists vs executable-find Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 22:24:59 +0200 Message-ID: <80ehrinobo.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <80mx69us0v.fsf@somewhere.org> <874nshjhnq.fsf@altern.org> <80aa29umso.fsf@somewhere.org> <87mx66zlz1.fsf@altern.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Bastien, Bastien wrote: > "Sebastien Vauban" writes: > >>> The name `org-program-exists' is actually misleading, it should be >>> `org-executable-call' instead, while still checking if the executable >>> exists before calling it. >> >> Nope, the name is not misleading. The documentation string is false -- what >> I hadn't noticed, btw. >> >> That function just checks if the executable can be found; it does _not_ >> call it afterward. > > You're right, I just fixed the docstring. > >> On Linux and Mac OS, it just calls "which + ", no more... On >> Windows, it simply fails immediately (even if the program could be found). > > If there is an equivalent of `which' on windows let me know, Not that I know, reason why I (must) have Cygwin... > we can generalize this function. Why not replacing it simply by `executable-find': I don't see what it adds to it? I would not say so if it was some upper abstraction, but I do feel they're simply the same. If not, the opposite should be done: replacing the 10 calls to `executable-find' by calls to `org-program-exists'... Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban