Re: master 3b4e312: Improve documentation around standard error pipes (Bug#35328).

[Michael Albinus]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> Maybe.  But what do you mean by "different implementation" here:
>
>> ! process object.  The @code{:stderr} argument cannot be a pipe; if it
>> ! is a buffer a different implementation will be used to show the buffer
>> ! contents.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This sounds vague and begs questions.  Can we be more clear?

I don't believe implementation details belong into that manual. What about

The @code{:stderr} argument cannot be a pipe process, file name handlers
do not support pipe processes for this.  A buffer as @code{:stderr}
argument is accepted, its contents is shown without the use of pipe processes.

Best regards, Michael.