Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
- X-seq: zsh-workers 15951
- From: Zefram <zefram@xxxxxxxx>
- To: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: BARE_GLOB_QUAL
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:56:29 +0100
- Cc: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <1011005164534.ZM32624@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <20011003001256.B14675@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1011003060441.ZM25764@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20011003021524.A15356@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1011003162422.ZM29481@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20011003142330.A16765@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1011004042305.ZM30162@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20011004004307.C18930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1011005161336.ZM32521@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20011005172343.A2872@xxxxxxxx> <1011005164534.ZM32624@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>Hm. We're using (#x) for various values of x to introduce things like
>approximate completion, case-insensitive matching, and backrefs. How
>about (#q...) for qualifiers?
Ah, that only works when EXTENDED_GLOB is on -- AIR, we wanted a syntax
that would work without EXTENDED_GLOB. However, on thinking about
it now, I don't see any pressing need for that. It seems reasonable
to have a system where the BARE_GLOB_QUAL option provides access
to an EXTENDED_GLOB feature in non-EXTENDED_GLOB globbing syntaxes.
(#q...) looks like a good choice.
> Also (#Q-) could turn off BARE_GLOB_QUAL,
>and (#Q+) could turn it on. (I can't decide which of those just (#Q)
That's silly. "(#Q+)" is a lot more characters than just adding "#q"
at the beginning of the qualifiers group. Similarly, "(#Q-)" is more
typing than adding an extra pair of parens around the non-qualifier group.
We should just have "(#q...)" for qualifiers, and encourage people to
turn off BARE_GLOB_QUAL.
>That would introduce the possibility of having different qualifiers for
>different parts of the glob pattern, e.g. `*(#qG)/*(#q.^G)' would list
>all plain files not owned by the current effective group that are in
>directories that are owned by the current effective group.
That's a neat idea, but, as you say, hairy.
>For now, all (#q...) should simply be gathered up and applied at the end
>as if they appeared in a single list.
No. To retain upward compatibility with the hairy idea, qualifiers
embedded within a pattern should be an error. We should require
qualifiers to appear at the end, where they'll still mean the same thing
when we do implement embedded qualifiers.
Messages sorted by: