From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11162 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2018 16:41:27 -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: List-Unsubscribe: X-Seq: 23287 Received: (qmail 7698 invoked by uid 1010); 28 Mar 2018 16:41:27 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mta02.eastlink.ca 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(24.224.136.13):SA:0(-1.9/5.0):. Processed in 15.059112 secs); 28 Mar 2018 16:41:27 -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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, T_SPF_TEMPERROR autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: rayandrews@eastlink.ca X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=dfKuI0fe c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=RnRVsdTsRxS/hkU0yKjOWA==:117 a=RnRVsdTsRxS/hkU0yKjOWA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=OrBw4wn2PaH1ejshEZ0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-EL-IP-NOAUTH: 24.207.101.9 Subject: Re: whence defect? To: zsh-users@zsh.org References: <09108f69-73cd-1070-9f57-2d275e62fe06@eastlink.ca> From: Ray Andrews Message-id: <329ec749-c78a-362e-b0e0-e5c8cdf7d000@eastlink.ca> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:41:07 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 In-reply-to: Content-language: en-CA On 28/03/18 08:53 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > That'd get very strange to keep track of, given that "." could appear > anywhere in the path, including at the end. You did ask (-a) for ALL > occurrences. Sure, that's a legitimate way to look at it tho I'd be 60/40 the other way.  I want ALL occurrences but not necessarily two occurrences of exactly the same file viewed from two perspectives ... or, nuts, maybe the arbitrary location of 'dot' should be permitted to display the results of an overlap on the path -- that has to  be the simplest thing in either case.  And there is a simple fix anyway, no reason to whine for a change. > >> perhaps noted, but if it is to show up twice why would the 'dot' version not >> show that it's a link as the explicit entry does? > Hmm. The code to print whether a command is a symbolic link is using > zsh's internal symlink-chasing routine, but that method only works for > file names starting with "/". > Well I'd still say that's a mistake.  '-S' says show me links and since the dot is a legitimate path, it should be handled, no? Following your logic above, if I see ALL occurrences, fine, but I should also see ALL data even on Tuesday.  The file IS a link and '-S' says show me that.  Period. ... or remove the duplicate.