Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: [BUG] umount mountpoint completion
- X-seq: zsh-workers 40786
- From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [BUG] umount mountpoint completion
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:19:16 +0000
- Cc: Ferdinand Thiessen <f.thiessen@xxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= daniel.shahaf.name; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=Lun+OecH9KVzXsp eAilSmxw0/G8=; b=KNI9d4t8uVxK3gzNjf4s3Sfk37/7IAFmEfzUlpxkTRkC93M bwsmhDAjeErQINBo2jX3VPvIT5aNgEdS11craOcy3e09GFVzWkk2GJJ9Y1inHncP lu27SurfMvI4/wF6SvJjRwO+9hX18i2r5L3JzObzngn5X8YfOrib2zJ96QLg=
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=Lun+OecH9KVzXs peAilSmxw0/G8=; b=B81olp633SgKQFItwnOPcK1o0w9XYM/vy11KipUSfxgiJv mef1ZzkTof4UIiFHdNFlqpQ+BOJ8xphO8WdHlFcFLhuyf1DmiNmJNteuQ1WSzwSa aodBq1rXlJU3Hj22CeKbESz7XuQ1jkS+s5j2qtS/rHIcSNGfL+nffX8S/1Rdk=
- In-reply-to: <170306151030.ZM18800@torch.brasslantern.com>
- 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: <email@example.com> <170305200130.ZM31787@torch.brasslantern.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <170306151030.ZM18800@torch.brasslantern.com>
Bart Schaefer wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 15:10:30 -0800:
> The fancy substitution that cleaned up this mess was then replaced by a
> simpler one that works NEARLY all the time; except it breaks when the
> aforementioned \040 for space is followed by ANOTHER digit. In that
> case the simplfied substitution treats (in Ferdinand's example) \0400
> as a single octal number and turns it into $'\C-@' instead of " 0".
> However, one question remains. Ferdinand, in your original message on
> this thread you said:
> } > % sudo umount "/tmp/a\ 0"
> } Which is of course invalid.
> Could you please explain why you consider this to be invalid? Because if
> all we do is revert 33963, the above is what you're going to get again,
> and I don't immediately see what's wrong with it.
umount's argv would include the backslash literally, and there is no
mount point called '/tmp/a\ 0', only '/tmp/a 0'.
Messages sorted by: