Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-f796c6d000001486-b6-570b62549dfa Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:37:38 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh workers Subject: Re: Allow slash in alternation patterns in limited cases? Message-id: <20160411093738.11406966@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <160410151105.ZM21544@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <160410151105.ZM21544@torch.brasslantern.com> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xq7ohSdzhBs0LdS0ONj9kcmD0WHXw A1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxoSXTawFT9krFrxcz9zAOJeti5GTQ0LARGL1m1ZmCFtM4sK9 9UBxLg4hgaWMErvWtrCAJIQEZjBJnL+eDGGfY5Q4vbwQougso8S6NYcZQRIsAqoSZ08uBJvK JmAoMXXTbLC4CFC8+fs/sEHCAk4Srx6eBavhFbCXmNkEEecUsJJY9XwmC8TQJkaJtRubwZr5 BfQlrv79xARxHlDDlTOMEM2CEj8m3wNrZhbQkti8rYkVwpaX2LzmLTPEpeoSN+7uZp/AKDwL ScssJC2zkLQsYGRexSiaWppcUJyUnmuoV5yYW1yal66XnJ+7iRESzl92MC4+ZnWIUYCDUYmH 1+EaV7gQa2JZcWXuIUYJDmYlEd5t8dzhQrwpiZVVqUX58UWlOanFhxilOViUxHnn7nofIiSQ nliSmp2aWpBaBJNl4uCUamBc8kKe9azApfIZwgZW0zLn+l3RFLJR/ySdfNtk+nKba5+VSk0k 1WslHki/lioQtjIp43ngZCG7y/7s25vrH8+7+7uvIOXrwsJHXMt1bFZc2O7M58DVpP3UoHfz l0trVwW+WLewSa9MVe3R3lMXxV9v4v/w1jfvSKuWcv+jRzd27mGU7NgX9UdKiaU4I9FQi7mo OBEAsLjaUWMCAAA= X-Seq: zsh-workers 38268 On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 15:11:05 -0700 Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Apr 10, 10:36pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote: > } > } /path/(to/file|or/another/file) # nope, too hard > } (/path/to/a/dir/*|/path/to/some/other/files/*) # can we allow this? > > My gut feeling is that this is close to impossible. The problem's not the parsing, it's the fact that you don't have appropriate chunks corresponding to directories for the scanner to loop over once pattern matching has parsed it. The only way I can see is effectively to parse it first in the globbing code to treat a complete set of parentheses specially. But this is going to be inconsistent with pattern matching one way or another. So a different syntax would be more sensible. > } If not, would it be possible to invent some new syntax to "paste" two > } or more globs together so that a single set of glob > } quals/sorts/flags/subscripts could apply to it? I think Bart's answered this. pws