Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Fix the ':A' word modifier on paths with '..' components.
- X-seq: zsh-workers 38769
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Fix the ':A' word modifier on paths with '..' components.
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:48:51 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brasslantern-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments:references:to:subject :mime-version; bh=gvfJ8DcGiiG1mg9VevE9+pvZxrHClGsHXDrsat2/SE8=; b=X7sbe92FG6Mw0OtZctQpnRUXxh0n4AMmH7pd89BWq9qA0qfUSMEaO/IZXa3MdfAz+s 9/lwmRrUex/jA69w6DbrpsE5tRkt658lJq6ateIdCZF+AMbWNmaCuWb89FYy5GGsWBB0 D+lfluPl5N64Ap9pSTkgsJDOszmiejVWAxiWzvNChwXQgglxLthHtfXaWs1OTfMTBS+h E3UiuIdB5MVgj7f6S84v+mqvzTp5a2BseTvyto7hJBsVYlhRsBH7YFR12AXu1zf3L/z8 exymAAfF9UwPl/cCBw8Ygm0isTRKpsQA14qONOi+d4nsau9EJJe1qCQY4j/lf20THGQ4 Usog==
- In-reply-to: <20160627002031.GA20366@tarsus.local2>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <20160613085218.GA9572@tarsus.local2> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHYJk3QPM+wKmzoT5jhPD90e=kYpdT0Yf2hNXcZd9woUSov+Mg@mail.gmail.com> <20160625162807.GA9840@tarsus.local2> <CAHYJk3SrjHP3mT+c7xWH49ozhh18WHvLC5LRUzoZwWnkSSv8fA@mail.gmail.com> <20160627002031.GA20366@tarsus.local2>
On Jun 27, 12:20am, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
} Mikael Magnusson wrote on Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 18:47:58 +0200:
} > That sounds pretty pointless, you would still break existing scripts,
} Yes, that's the whole point: I think the "new" semantics should be the
Obviously breaking scripts is not the point. On the other hand, I don't
think many scripts would care. :A is only used in four places in zsh's
Completion and Functions trees and none of those would suffer from the
change in semantics as far as I can tell.
I floated the idea of testing CHASE_DOTS so that there would be a way
to globally revert to the old behavior without having to update a lot
of scripts, but I hadn't considered the "backward" semantics, and I'm
not in favor of introducing a new option specifically for :A control.
However, with the current implementation there is NO way to obtain the
semantics Daniel wants.
Therefore I think the only reasonable solutions are:
(1) keep the current default and respect CHASE_DOTS to get the function
Daniel wants, or
(2) change the default and use :a:A to get the old behavior.
I lean slightly towards (1) but only because the doc has explicitly
called out the "resolve .. first" behavior for the past 7 years.
Messages sorted by: