From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20634 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2016 14:00:11 -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: 21783 Received: (qmail 9511 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2016 14:00:11 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from ioooi.vinc17.net 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(92.243.22.117):SA:0(-1.3/5.0):. Processed in 0.15346 secs); 20 Jul 2016 14:00:11 -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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: vincent@vinc17.net X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at vinc17.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:00:06 +0200 From: Vincent Lefevre To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: Next release (5.3) Message-ID: <20160720140006.GA28704@zira.vinc17.org> Mail-Followup-To: zsh-users@zsh.org References: <20160712075849.GG1537@isis.sigpipe.cz> <160712094017.ZM17395@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160720130512.GA20398@zira.vinc17.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160720130512.GA20398@zira.vinc17.org> X-Mailer-Info: https://www.vinc17.net/mutt/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-6725-vl-r89564 (2016-07-16) On 2016-07-20 15:05:12 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-07-12 09:40:17 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote: > > 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. > > But it does not say how ".." is resolved. Using the realpath system > call is a way (the only correct one) to resolve "..". BTW, Bart, you even got confused in the past: http://www.zsh.org/mla/users/2013/msg00675.html with an incorrect solution. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)