From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17712 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2016 16:40:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 21747 Received: (qmail 4964 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2016 16:40:03 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(209.85.220.45):SA:0(0.0/5.0):. Processed in 0.177141 secs); 12 Jul 2016 16:40:03 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: schaefer@brasslantern.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at brasslantern.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) 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=Eq2VyicPWKiJV9fWj7GkKbK5AawdyUuCA8GVBereXtc=; b=sO3PXm5lktDyKNRIXpxvLzEMFyHovhrZxZF5e5E8yVdnzrtt1ytpPs1AiBtaiNAVMB A7XUnIr7tuqbhJeu7cSHHL3j2k3PGIOA0GR/ItbHnhYvJj71xL4VxVPQvsvCvIwsy3n+ 0679Kb+A9LC8WUv9ogS85jUtgT9ZdwGpnOT4+bqgoLuH0CMMmV9mSGLXyMyOtut+nk/f tBmtpHH7WjAFW9LJWihDnuj8eneEkskZLlxVKP/v6gH0Ks0bF8wE7iMTxZkfjWTRH7kw 84usQQ7cwmmwziEwhkIOFWKzQWUvkRFQ0qCgtP9colyhf+LiuaPyyEb7DihNaRXOOK4S 1ekA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments :references:to:subject:mime-version; bh=Eq2VyicPWKiJV9fWj7GkKbK5AawdyUuCA8GVBereXtc=; b=Cr6+HRpQAh6uH7IWdSX+1VZ1ZdCtFLKEaSGD7vtaYL5xsrYNQQqSO6jq8DZ9sSG6Gf e1ZTXN4k5iYTrYarU3Z88S+iNCGSewm96varnT503yYG5eyXymZuiW1m9KmNp7iXPKCR sm4s3+CzDtD/DoCUXcF9bXkGYKvdw57YnvuqZR8OHxQ3MXgCZFYzRlRjx2TXiEW5fhLu wLyf4N5+tNCQH3jdwJwNpMrk5+ZCjlLgog+SkHMhe80a4nxsNh+J4mv7/iIUp9lR7xur DKwcIpW5EZ6L+xNZHZSsYcCIXdGG/5bPjGUKu8ugflJKpoADueuLiGucIgnSEWTNx8UF 75lA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL/DGINqWMO3QtQ3+JUqLzxSW3Q8u5eyuhRf2y/yQ6mekxhgxaatvdNKeT0P3UTdA== X-Received: by 10.66.221.134 with SMTP id qe6mr5588745pac.76.1468341596993; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <160712094017.ZM17395@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:40:17 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160712075849.GG1537@isis.sigpipe.cz> Comments: In reply to Roman Neuhauser "Re: Next release (5.3)" (Jul 12, 9:58am) References: <20160712075849.GG1537@isis.sigpipe.cz> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: Next release (5.3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jul 12, 9:58am, Roman Neuhauser wrote: } Subject: Re: Next release (5.3) } } I understand the issue is that although zshexpn(1) claims... } } This call is equivalent to `a` unless your system has the realpath } system call (modern systems do). } } ... this is not the case. Correct? Well, I use it for this } exact purpose. Your statement is going to require some clarification. By "exact purpose" do you mean "as a replacement for realpath"? The documentation says: 1. resolution of `..' occurs _before_ resolution of symbolic links 2. equivalent to a unless your system has the realpath system call These are not contraditory but they explicitly do NOT mean that :A is a replacement for realpath. All that (2) means is :A does NOT follow symbolic links unless realpath is available to do that work. You go on to say: } > [...] "$foo" and "$foo:a" might also denote different } > files, so why is *that* a useful transformation? } } It's not, and I don't use it. Per my two points above, on any system that lacks realpath, you DO use :a implicitly, because :A does not differ from :a when there is no realpath underneath. } > > (1) Daniel's suggested change to :A [care to offer an opinion?] } > } > I'd be vaguely inclined to make sure it does what the doc currently } > says and leave it at that. } } I'd prefer (it would *fix* my scripts) this to happen. You'd prefer what? :A presently DOES what the doc currently says. PWS's comment in effect means he's inclined to change nothing. If what you mean is that you'd prefer that :A is a replacement for realpath with all the same semantics as realpath, then you're now requesting something that wasn't previously being discussed. The present situation is: 1. :a performs a string-manipulation on the path to remove any relative path segments. 2. :A does (1) and then calls realpath on the result. This matches the documentation. Daniel is arguing that (1) is essentially useless and calling realpath after that may give a different result than realpath on the original path string. His suggestion is: 1. :a is as before 2. :A calls realpath, and does (1) only if there is no realpath (It's unclear to me whether there would be any reason to do (1) AFTER calling realpath.) The emerging consensus seems to be for: 1. :a is as before 2. :A is as before 3. new modifier calls realpath and does (1) if no realpath Is there one of those three cases with which you agree, or are you in fact asking for zsh to re-implement realpath internally? Does the re-statement above change anyone else's opinion about which alternative should be chosen? Please note that I don't think there is any current zsh developer who is keen to rebuild realpath.