Start emacs from shell with predefined lisp code - shell

It is possible to start emacs from the shell and tell it to execute a lisp function, e.g.
emacs -f some-lisp-function my_file.py
However, I would like to pass also lisp functions with arguments, like
emacs -f "(goto-line 10)" my_file.py
# --> not working
and in the best of all worlds, pass also more complex lisp code consisting of multiple function calls, like
emacs -f "(goto-line 10) (some-other-func some-arg)" my_file.py
# --> not working
Does somebody know how?
Edit: To clarify this point, I need a way to evaluate the lisp code in the file's own buffer, after opening it.
(Btw. I know that the goto-line problem could be solved differently without using -f but thats just one example for my general problem)

Try emacs my_file.py --eval '(progn (goto-line 10) (some-other-func some-arg))'. Also note that invoking Emacs as emacs +10 my_file.py will open the file at the tenth line.

You have access to the command line that Emacs was invoked with. You can add code to handle your own command line switches. Depending on what you want, this may be cleaner than --eval. See http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Command_002dLine-Arguments.html and Emacs custom command line argument.

Related

How do I edit current shell command without executing it?

There seems to be quite a lot of information on how to edit and execute a command using your editor using "edit-and-execute-command (C-x C-e)", but what I would like to achieve is take the current shell command, apply certain filtering (using a script) and then return it to prompt for further approval/manual changes before execution. Is this possible with bash?
Latest update based on my experience
The part 0"+y$dd in the following mapping is really something that you should carefully think about and tailor it to your taste/workflow/experience.
For instance, very frequently I've found myself ending up with multiple lines in the buffer, where I only want to execute the one the cursor is on; in this case I can use 0"+y$dd:%d<CR> instead of 0"+y$dd.
And this is just one of the possible scenarios.
Final answer for those who like vim
Set vim as your EDITOR/VISUAL, so that when editing a command line, you will use vim to edit it.
Put au BufEnter /tmp/bash-fc.* nn <Leader>d 0"+y$dd:wq<CR> in your ~/.vimrc file to map Leaderd (which you will rarely use when editing a command) to the action "delete the current line into the + register without the trailing EOL".
you can use either the + or the * register in the mapping above; the ways to paste into the terminal will likely differ; you need the +clipboard option for these registers to be available.
When finished editing a command in the vim editor, hit EscapeLeaderd.
Paste the clipboard into the terminal (this is terminal-dependent).
Original answer
I often need to do the same, and I do it as follows. (I normally use the set -o vi in bash, so points 1 and 2 in the following are different if you use set -o emacs, the default; based on your question it looks like points 1 and 2 are unified in Ctrl+x followed by Ctrl+e, which is harder to type, imho.)
hit Escape to be in normal mode,
hit v to enter the editor to edit the command,
edit the command as I like,
(This is where you ask the question.)
hit Escape0"+y$dd:wq,
Note: 0"+y$, not simply "+yy, as the latter would copy the newline too, and this would result in executing the command upon pasting it in the command line,
paste the clipboard on the command line
how to do this depends on the terminal you are using, I guess; I hit Ctrl+Alt+v in URxvt.
proceed to approval/manual edit.
Clearly this is just a workaround, consisting in copying the edited command into the clipboard before deleting the whole command, so that nothing gets executed upon exiting the editor; however it's the best I can get for myself.
Update
As my EDITOR (and VISUAL) is equal to vim, when I edit the command, I edit it in vim.
In this respect, I have noticed that the buffer is named /tmp/bash-fc.random, where random is a 6-characters alphanumeric random string.
This gives space to a lot of possiblities, if you use vim as your editor, as you can define some mapping in your .vimrc to execute the whole sequence Escape0"+y$dd:wq. For instance, one command that you'd rarely use when editing a command line is Leaderd; therefore you can put the following mapping in your .vimrc file
au BufEnter /tmp/bash-fc.* nn <Leader>d 0"+y$dd:wq<CR>
so that step 4 in the above recipe becomes
hit EscapeLeaderd
It's not possible to do that in Bash/readline but it's possible in zsh
using edit-command-line command:
darkstar% autoload edit-command-line; zle -N edit-command-line
darkstar% bindkey "^X^E" edit-command-line
Now press Control-x Control-e to open your editor, edit line, leave the editor - you will see the updated command line but it will not be executed automatically.
Now that I think about it, maybe a variation of what #kenorb suggested in a comment is the best workaround (as it seems no solution exists), if we want to stick to bash.
What you can do is prepend a # (the comment character in bash) to the command, rather than echo. Then when you exit the editor, the command will be ineffective, and you will only have to press arrow up (or k, if you use set -o vi), remove the # and confirming.
Note that this strategy adds just a few keystrokes, so it can be fairly efficient, depending on your typing level.
These pieces might get you closer:
a) replace the the normal binding for newline newline (ctrl-M)
bind -x '"\C-M":date"
b) grab the current line from the history using !#
replace date with whatever script you want.
c) edit manually
d) if necessary, somehow tie in !!:p which prints the new command to the command line but does not execute it, thus letting you manually edit it.
e) using ctrl-J submit edited command rather than a newline
or they might not ....
There is an option in bash to modify command from history without executing it. I'm not sure it it's possible to use script for this, doesn't seem to be likely. Although, you can make modifications using history modifiers.
Enable option histverify to prevent execution of modified command
Use chain of modifiers to change last command
Use "!!" to put your result to command line for final edit
Here is how it looks:
$ shopt -s histverify
$ ls *.sh
script1.sh script2.sh script3.sh script-return.sh
$ !!:s/*/script1/:p
ls script1.sh
$ !!:s/1/2/:p
ls script2.sh
$ !!
$ ls script2.sh
script2.sh
I'd like to point you to the Composure framework for Bash (I'm not affiliated with it): https://github.com/erichs/composure
It provides draft and revise functions that sound like they could help with what you're trying to do. Here's a (long) quote from the project's readme file:
Composure helps by letting you quickly draft simple shell functions,
breaking down your long pipe filters and complex commands into
readable and reusable chunks.
Draft first, ask questions later
Once you've crafted your gem of a command, don't throw it away! Use
draft () and give it a good name. This stores your last command as a
function you can reuse later. Think of it like a rough draft.
$ cat servers.txt
bashful: up
doc: down
up-arrow
$ cat servers.txt | grep down
doc: down
$ draft finddown
$ finddown | mail -s "down server(s)" admin#here.com
Revise, revise, revise!
Now that you've got a minimal shell function, you may want to make it
better through refactoring and revision. Use the revise () command
to revise your shell function in your favorite editor.
generalize functions with input parameters
add or remove functionality
add supporting metadata for documentation
$ revise finddown
finddown ()
{
about finds servers marked 'down' in text file
group admin
cat $1 | grep down
}
$ finddown servers.txt
doc: down
It does not seem possible with a keyboard shortcut, at least:
$ bind -P | grep -e command -e edit
complete-command can be found on "\e!".
edit-and-execute-command can be found on "\C-x\C-e".
emacs-editing-mode is not bound to any keys
possible-command-completions can be found on "\C-x!".
vi-editing-mode is not bound to any keys
This can be done in native bash using readline specifically READLINE_LINE and READLINE_POINT variables. I use this functionality all the time though not through vim, you would need to get the value of $selected from your vim command and if not empty it takes your original line + your input and replaces your original line with the combination without executing. output as a variable
_main() {
selected="$(__coms_select__ "$#")"
origonal_text=$READLINE_LINE READLINE_LINE="${READLINE_LINE:0:$READLINE_POINT}$selected${READLINE_LINE:$READLINE_POINT}"
READLINE_POINT=$(( READLINE_POINT + ${#selected} ))
}
bind -m emacs-standard -x '"\C-e": _main '
bind -m vi-command -x '"\C-e": _main '
bind -m vi-insert -x '"\C-e": _main '
Edit
Just remembered these two utilities that will let you do this as well.
Vipe allows you to run your editor in the middle of a unix pipeline and edit the data that is being piped between programs.
vp, up, vipe, Neomux (upgrade of nvim terminal) you can do some pretty neat throwing buffers between the terminal and split window.
and Athame (full vim on the command line)
https://github.com/ardagnir/athame
careful with that one though plugins work on the cli and it can get funky if you got tons of plugins

Interpretation of additional arguments to Ruby's Kernel::system method

Why does the first excerpt succeed and the second fail?
system 'emacs', '--batch', '--quick', '--eval="(require \'package)"'
system 'emacs --batch --quick --eval="(require \'package)"'
(If it matters, I'm executing the code on Mac OS X Mountain Lion with Ruby version 1.8.7 and Emacs version 22.1.1.)
First of all, those two system calls are different in ways that you may not expect. A quick example will probably explain the difference better than a bunch of words and hand waving. Start with a simple shell script:
#!/bin/sh
echo $1
I'll call that pancakes.sh because I like pancakes more than foo. Then we can step into irb and see what's going on:
>> system('./pancakes.sh --where-is="house?"')
--where-is=house?
>> system('./pancakes.sh', '--where-is="house?"')
--where-is="house?"
Do you see the significant difference? The single argument form of system hands the whole string to /bin/sh for processing and /bin/sh will deal with the double quotes in its own way so the program being called will never see them. The multi-argument form of system doesn't invoke /bin/sh to process the command line so the arguments are passed as-is with double quotes intact.
Back to your system calls. The first one will send this exact argument to emacs (note that Ruby will take care of converting \' to just '):
--eval="(require 'package)"
and emacs will try to evaluate "(require 'package)"; that looks more like a string than an elisp snippet to me and evaluating a string literal doesn't do much of anything. Your second will send this to emacs:
--eval=(require 'package)
and emacs will complain that it
Cannot open load file: package
Note that my elisp knowledge is buried under about 20 years of rust and forgetfulness so some of the emacs details may be a bit off.

Run emacs lisp command from inferior shell

How do I call an emacs lisp function programmatically from an inferior shell?
For instance, I'm in a shell that uses some characters that emacs recognizes and attempts to autoexpand, so I want to run this command (setq comint-input-autoexpand nil) to apply it to the shell I'm in.
I can do this now by entering the text of the command in the shell and running something like eval-region on it but I want my shell to be able to invoke this command itself.
Thanks to the people who responded but it seems my question is unclear. I can accomplish what I want by entering an elisp expression, selecting it, and calling 'eval-region' on it but this requires manual input. What I want is a way to automate this so my shell can send emacs a command to change its own settings.
The "emacsclient" suggestion seems like it's in the right direction but I'm afraid that Windows does not fully support its options and it's unclear that such a command would affect the buffer from which I invoke it since I would do so via an external "shell" command.
What I want is some sort of escape sequence that signals emacs "This elisp expression is for you". I'm guessing there might be a way to open a socket to emacs and send it commands this way but I still have the problem of selecting the buffer to which to apply the command. Again, this is probably more difficult/impossible in Windows, so I will rely on my command bound to a key sequence for now.
It sounds like you are looking for M-x eval-expression, bound by default to M-: (Alt+Colon, i.e. Alt+Shift+semicolon). The expression is evaluated in whatever context you were in when eval-expression was invoked, so if the expression sets a buffer-local variable, it will be set for your current buffer.
You can use emacsclient to do it. You'll need to have started emacs as a server, either with (server-start) in your .emacs or by starting emacs as a background process with --daemon.
You can evaluate elisp code in your shell like this:
emacsclient --eval '(setq comint-input-autoexpand nil)'

Can I use what I wrote on the shell (bash, cmd, irb, etc) in a script automatically?

The general idea is pretty simple, I want to make a script for a certain task, I do it in the shell (any shell), and then I want to copy the commands I have used.
If I copy all the stuff in the window, then I have a lot of stuff to delete and to correct. (and is not easy to copy from shell)
Resume: I want to take all the things I wrote...
Is there an easy way to do this easy task?
Update: Partial solution
In bash, the solution is pretty simple, there is a history command, and there are ports of the idea:
IRB: Tweaking IRB
Cmd: Use PowerShell -> Get-History (or use cygwin)
Another Update:
I found that doskey have a parameter history to do this:
cmd: Doskey /history >> history.cmd
Yes, you can use:
history -w filename.sh
This will save your command history to filename.sh. You may need to edit that to keep just the lines at the end that are part of your command sequence.
NOTE: This is a bash command and will not work with all shells.
script may help here. Typing script will throw you into a new shell and save
all input and output to a file called typescript. When you're done with your interaction,
exit the shell. The file typescript is then amenable to grep'ing. For example, you might
grep for your prompt and save the output to the file. If you're a clumsy typist like me, then you may need to do some cleanup work to remove backspaces. There used to be a program that did thisbut I don't seem to find it right now. Here is one I found on the
'net: http://www.cat.pdx.edu/tutors/files/fixts.cpp
This approach is especially useful if you want to track and post on the web an entire interactive session.

Emacs and Long Shell Commands

Is there a way to run a shell command, have the output show up in a new buffer and have that output show up incrementally? Eshell and other emacs terminal emulators do a find job of this but I see no way to script them.
What I'd like to do is write little elisp functions to do stuff like run unit tests, etc. and watch the output trickle into a buffer.
The elisp function shell-command is close to what I want but it shows all the output at once when the process finishes.
As doublep mentioned, there is M-x compile, and there's also just the simple M-x shell and in that shell you run whatever you want.
You can also use comint-run to execute a command without needing to start a sub-shell first. I believe M-x shell uses comint mode with some modifications, so this won't be a whole lot different from that. But if you want to call a program directly and have its input and output be tied to a buffer, comint-run is the function to call. It is a little tricky to use, so read the documentation: C-h f comint-run.

Resources