RE: How to get eshell to do what I used to do with shell

[KARR, DAVID]

I don't understand that. I will be performing different tasks in different 
directories, and the output for tasks in one directory need to kept separate 
from the output for tasks in other directories.

By "different remotes", do you mean different hosts? I wouldn't be doing that 
at all.

From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+dk068x=att.com@gnu.org 
<help-gnu-emacs-bounces+dk068x=att.com@gnu.org> On Behalf Of James Thomas
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2024 2:01 PM
To: Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Subject: Re: How to get eshell to do what I used to do with shell

KARR, DAVID wrote: > My old wrapper had these features: > * In a non-shell 
buffer, execing the main func would either create the > first shell buffer, or 
go to the first one in the chain, perhaps > called the 0th. > * In a shell


KARR, DAVID wrote:



> My old wrapper had these features:

> * In a non-shell buffer, execing the main func would either create the

> first shell buffer, or go to the first one in the chain, perhaps

> called the 0th.

> * In a shell buffer, execing the main func would create a new shell in

> the chain, using the current directory

> * In a shell buffer, execing the "goto-next-shell" func would move to

> the next buffer in the chain, or back to 0 if at the end

> * In a shell buffer, execing the "find-shell-with-dir" func would take

> a string argument and find the next buffer in the chain where the pwd

> has that string as a substring

>

> I think all of these are doable



They should be, but lemme just say that I think a better way to use

eshell is to have a single buffer: the ability to transparently 'cd' to

different remotes and selectively open async output buffers (at least

for me) makes keeping multiple buffers redundant and is more convenient:

if the user is a single person, all the commands are in a particular

sequence, after all.



Regards,

James