noglob does not call alias?

noglob does not call alias?

[Amm]

Hello,

So I was just trying this.

$ alias rm='nocorrect rm -i'
$ touch 1 2

$ ls
1  2


$ rm 1
rm: remove regular empty file `1'? n

$ noglob rm 1

$ ls
2


Shock!! File deleted without asking for confirmation?!

I think this is not what (new zsh) user expects.

How do I prevent this?


Also 'noglob' does not respect RM_STAR_SILENT=off.

$ unsetopt RM_STAR_SILENT
$ rm *

zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in ... [yn]? n
rm: missing operand
Try `rm --help' for more information.

First I think when I said 'n'(no), it should not call
'rm' at all instead of calling it without any filename.

But, anyway, continuing with my e-mail:


$ noglob rm *
rm: cannot remove `*': No such file or directory

    

This caused no harm here but I would still prefer that
it should ask if I am sure to delete all the files.
(Purpose here is to warn user of scary error!)


So any idea?

Thanks in advance,


Amm

Re: noglob does not call alias?

[ZyX]

13.03.14, 13:01, "Amm" <ammdispose-zsh@yahoo.com>":
> 
> Hello,
> 
> So I was just trying this.
> 
> $ alias rm='nocorrect rm -i'
> $ touch 1 2
> 
> $ ls
> 1  2
> 
> 
> $ rm 1
> rm: remove regular empty file `1'? n
> 
> $ noglob rm 1
> 
> $ ls
> 2
> 
> 
> Shock!! File deleted without asking for confirmation?!
> 
> I think this is not what (new zsh) user expects.
> 
> How do I prevent this?
> 
> 
> Also 'noglob' does not respect RM_STAR_SILENT=off.
> 
> $ unsetopt RM_STAR_SILENT
> $ rm *
> 
> zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in ... [yn]? n
> rm: missing operand
> Try `rm --help' for more information.
> 
> First I think when I said 'n'(no), it should not call
> 'rm' at all instead of calling it without any filename.
> 
> But, anyway, continuing with my e-mail:
> 
> 
> $ noglob rm *
> rm: cannot remove `*': No such file or directory
> 
>     
> 
> This caused no harm here but I would still prefer that
> it should ask if I am sure to delete all the files.
> (Purpose here is to warn user of scary error!)

I am not sure I understand correctly: do you say that "noglob rm *" should ask whether user wants to delete all files? It is not correct: due to the definition of "noglob" "noglob rm *" is "rm '*'": you ask do delete file named star, not to remove all files. Coreutils commands do not expand their arguments as it the job of the shell which in turn was told not to do this as well (noglob). Unless you use cygwin AFAIR.

> 
> 
> 
> So any idea?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> 
> Amm

Re: noglob does not call alias?

[Christoph (Stucki) von Stuckrad]

Hi!

This looked like a mix of cases and
I try to sort some out:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, ZyX wrote:

> > $ alias rm='nocorrect rm -i'
...
> > rm: remove regular empty file `1'? n

The question is asked because of alias

> > $ noglob rm 1

aliases are expanded from the beginning of the LINE,
not from the command itself, so anything in front
of 'rm' seems to suppress the alias, like e.g.
FOO=bar rm 1
also does.

> > $ ls
> > 2

So here's no question.

> > I think this is not what (new zsh) user expects.
> > 
> > How do I prevent this?

To prevent 'this', you need to make the
Option '-i' permanent for all 'rm' calls,
which is easier in functions, see at end.

> > Also 'noglob' does not respect RM_STAR_SILENT=off.
> > 
> > $ unsetopt RM_STAR_SILENT
> > $ rm *
> > 
> > zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in ... [yn]? n

Well, it DID ask!

> > rm: missing operand
> > Try `rm --help' for more information.

BUT you still had your alias defined, so you really called

noglob rm -i *

> > First I think when I said 'n'(no), it should not call
> > 'rm' at all instead of calling it without any filename.

THIS is an interesting question!

Why did 'rm *', resulting in 'noglob rm -i *' still execute ???

I assume, the handling of 'denied' case of 'rm *' ends with
a still existing parameter to 'rm', and thus runs the command
instead of ignoring it completely?

> > But, anyway, continuing with my e-mail:
> > 
> > 
> > $ noglob rm *
> > rm: cannot remove `*': No such file or directory

This is, as it should be, and must not reply
differently, lest being incompatible to the
reaction of the other shell variants.



So I think, the only possibly strange case
is the 'dangling -i without filename' created
by the alias.

Such 'strange' effects made me switch completely
from using 'aliases' to 'functions' instead!

For example defining this:

function rm {
         nocorrect command rm -i "$@"
}

might be the 'secured rm' which you tried
to create by aliases and which reacts as
assumed on 'rm *', because the options
are 'inside the function only' and do
not interfere with your typed command.

Stucki

-- 
Christoph von Stuckrad      * * |nickname |Mail <stucki@mi.fu-berlin.de> \
Freie Universitaet Berlin   |/_*|'stucki' |Tel(Mo.,Mi.):+49 30 838-75 459|
Mathematik & Informatik EDV |\ *|if online|  (Di,Do,Fr):+49 30 77 39 6600|
Takustr. 9 / 14195 Berlin   * * |on IRCnet|Fax(home):   +49 30 77 39 6601/

Re: noglob does not call alias?

[ZyX]

13.03.14, 16:50, "Christoph (Stucki) von Stuckrad" <stucki@math.fu-berlin.de>":
> 
> Hi!
> 
> This looked like a mix of cases and
> I try to sort some out:
> 
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, ZyX wrote:
> 
> > > $ alias rm='nocorrect rm -i'
> ...
> > > rm: remove regular empty file `1'? n
> 
> The question is asked because of alias
> 
> > > $ noglob rm 1
> 
> aliases are expanded from the beginning of the LINE,
> not from the command itself, so anything in front
> of 'rm' seems to suppress the alias, like e.g.
> FOO=bar rm 1
> also does.
> 
> > > $ ls
> > > 2
> 
> So here's no question.
> 
> > > I think this is not what (new zsh) user expects.
> > > 
> > > How do I prevent this?
> 
> To prevent 'this', you need to make the
> Option '-i' permanent for all 'rm' calls,
> which is easier in functions, see at end.
> 
> > > Also 'noglob' does not respect RM_STAR_SILENT=off.
> > > 
> > > $ unsetopt RM_STAR_SILENT
> > > $ rm *
> > > 
> > > zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in ... [yn]? n
> 
> Well, it DID ask!
> 
> > > rm: missing operand
> > > Try `rm --help' for more information.
> 
> BUT you still had your alias defined, so you really called
> 
> noglob rm -i *
> 
> > > First I think when I said 'n'(no), it should not call
> > > 'rm' at all instead of calling it without any filename.
> 
> THIS is an interesting question!
> 
> Why did 'rm *', resulting in 'noglob rm -i *' still execute ???
> 
> I assume, the handling of 'denied' case of 'rm *' ends with
> a still existing parameter to 'rm', and thus runs the command
> instead of ignoring it completely?
> 
> > > But, anyway, continuing with my e-mail:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > $ noglob rm *
> > > rm: cannot remove `*': No such file or directory
> 
> This is, as it should be, and must not reply
> differently, lest being incompatible to the
> reaction of the other shell variants.
> 
> 
> 
> So I think, the only possibly strange case
> is the 'dangling -i without filename' created
> by the alias.
> 
> Such 'strange' effects made me switch completely
> from using 'aliases' to 'functions' instead!
> 
> For example defining this:
> 
> function rm {
>          nocorrect command rm -i "$@"

Corrections happen before function execution. Same for glob expansion. Putting nocorrect modifier here is a no-op, they have to be used from an alias. But putting -i in a function is correct and is the solution to the problem.

> 
> }
> 
> might be the 'secured rm' which you tried
> to create by aliases and which reacts as
> assumed on 'rm *', because the options
> are 'inside the function only' and do
> not interfere with your typed command.
> 
> Stucki
> 
> -- 
> Christoph von Stuckrad      * * |nickname |Mail <stucki@mi.fu-berlin.de> \
> Freie Universitaet Berlin   |/_*|'stucki' |Tel(Mo.,Mi.):+49 30 838-75 459|
> Mathematik & Informatik EDV |\ *|if online|  (Di,Do,Fr):+49 30 77 39 6600|
> Takustr. 9 / 14195 Berlin   * * |on IRCnet|Fax(home):   +49 30 77 39 6601/

Re: noglob does not call alias?

[Bart Schaefer]

On Mar 13,  1:38pm, Christoph (Stucki) von Stuckrad wrote:
}
} aliases are expanded from the beginning of the LINE,
} not from the command itself, so anything in front
} of 'rm' seems to suppress the alias, like e.g.
} FOO=bar rm 1
} also does.

Umm, no.  What gave you that idea?

torch% alias rm='echo not removing'
torch% FOO=bar rm 1
not removing 1

However, aliases defined without -g are only expanded in the command
position (occupied by "noglob" in the original example) OR when the
word in command position is itself an alias ending in a space.

So the original complaint can be resolved by

torch% alias noglob='noglob '
torch% noglob rm ?
not removing ?

} Why did 'rm *', resulting in 'noglob rm -i *' still execute ???
} 
} I assume, the handling of 'denied' case of 'rm *' ends with
} a still existing parameter to 'rm', and thus runs the command
} instead of ignoring it completely?

That's correct.  The handling for "rm *" actually walks through the
argument list and asks once for every "*" or word ending in "/*" and
if the answer is no, deletes it from the argument list and moves on
to the next one.  So "rm * * *" will prompt you three times.

If arguments remain after that, the rm is executed.

-- 
Barton E. Schaefer

Re: noglob does not call alias?

[Amm]

On 03/13/2014 06:08 PM, Christoph (Stucki) von Stuckrad wrote:
>>> $ noglob rm 1

> aliases are expanded from the beginning of the LINE,
> not from the command itself, so anything in front
> of 'rm' seems to suppress the alias, like e.g.
> FOO=bar rm 1
> also does.

This I think is wrong. noglob and nocorrect should be treated
as special case and word following should be checked for
existence of alias. (not just command)

>>> How do I prevent this?

> To prevent 'this', you need to make the
> Option '-i' permanent for all 'rm' calls,
> which is easier in functions, see at end.

Hmm, then I think functions should be recommended instead of
alias atleast for risky commands like 'rm;


>>> Also 'noglob' does not respect RM_STAR_SILENT=off.
>>>
>>> $ unsetopt RM_STAR_SILENT
>>> $ rm *
>>>
>>> zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in ... [yn]? n
 >>> rm: missing operand
 >>> Try `rm --help' for more information.


> Well, it DID ask!

Umm, this was not a question. This was part of example.
I was just showing what happens without noglob.


> BUT you still had your alias defined, so you really called
>
> noglob rm -i *
>

As already pointed above noglob does not call rm with -i

Probably you mean nocorrect instead of noglob.


 >>> First I think when I said 'n'(no), it should not call
 >>> 'rm' at all instead of calling it without any filename.


> THIS is an interesting question!

> Why did 'rm *', resulting in 'noglob rm -i *' still execute ???
>
> I assume, the handling of 'denied' case of 'rm *' ends with
> a still existing parameter to 'rm', and thus runs the command
> instead of ignoring it completely?

This actually was side question unrelated to this thread.

>>> But, anyway, continuing with my e-mail:


Here comes the question.

>>> $ noglob rm *
>>> rm: cannot remove `*': No such file or directory

> This is, as it should be, and must not reply
> differently, lest being incompatible to the
> reaction of the other shell variants.

I know, I already stated that this does not cause any harm.

But what I meant that I would still prefer zsh to trigger
a warning whether I used noglob OR not.

I NEVER do 'rm *'. So if there is rm * on command line that surely 
means, its by mistake, so I would prefer to see a warning,  even if 
there is 'noglob'.


> Such 'strange' effects made me switch completely
> from using 'aliases' to 'functions' instead!

Yep, even I think I should switch to 'functions'!


But I would again propose that 'noglob' and 'nocorrect' should
not treat next word as command, it should also check for alias.

Thanks for your replies

Amm

Re: noglob does not call alias?

[Amm]

On 03/13/2014 08:06 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> However, aliases defined without -g are only expanded in the command
> position (occupied by "noglob" in the original example) OR when the
> word in command position is itself an alias ending in a space.

> So the original complaint can be resolved by
>
> torch% alias noglob='noglob '
> torch% noglob rm ?
> not removing ?

This works if alias rm='rm -i'

but gives error if I have these:

alias rm='nocorrect rm -i'
alias noglob='noglob '

$ noglob rm 1
zsh: command not found: nocorrect


As I already said in my previous e-mail that, zsh needs to consider 
noglob and nocommand as special case and treat the next argument as 
alias as well as command. (not just command)

Then we will not need the workarounds like create a rm() function or 
create alias noglob='noglob '


>
> } Why did 'rm *', resulting in 'noglob rm -i *' still execute ???
> }
> } I assume, the handling of 'denied' case of 'rm *' ends with
> } a still existing parameter to 'rm', and thus runs the command
> } instead of ignoring it completely?
>
> That's correct.  The handling for "rm *" actually walks through the
> argument list and asks once for every "*" or word ending in "/*" and
> if the answer is no, deletes it from the argument list and moves on
> to the next one.  So "rm * * *" will prompt you three times.
>
> If arguments remain after that, the rm is executed.


Asking 3 times make no sense!

I think purpose of this 'rm *' special handling is to prevent accidental 
file deletion. (due to accidental addition of * in arguments)

So if he typed: rm * 1 2 3

And then zsh warns me and then I said "Oh, no I dont want this! And 
answe no".

It obvious I made a mistake, So rm should NOT be executed at all (even 
if there are arguments remaining)

Let him first manually delete '*' from command and execute rm again.

Amm

Re: noglob does not call alias?

[Bart Schaefer]

On Mar 13,  8:47pm, Amm wrote:
}
} alias rm='nocorrect rm -i'
} alias noglob='noglob '
} 
} $ noglob rm 1
} zsh: command not found: nocorrect

This is documented:

nocorrect
     Spelling correction is not done on any of the words.  This must
     appear before any other precommand modifier, as it is interpreted
     immediately, before any parsing is done.  It has no effect in
     non-interactive shells.

The other precommand modifiers are actually builtin commands rather
than reserved words.  There is a long list of reasons it ended up
this way which I'm not going to attempt to repeat here, but that is
why their arguments don't get magic treatment at parse time.

-- 
Barton E. Schaefer