Completion: smarter symlink completion

Completion: smarter symlink completion

[Ramkumar Ramachandra]

Hi,

I noticed that symlinks are always completed with the trailing slash,
like directories, and unlike normal files.  This can be problematic if
the user runs `rm -r` on a symlink by mistake.  Is this really a bug,
or am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks.

Ram

p.s- Please CC me on replies, as I'm not subscribed to the list.

Re: Completion: smarter symlink completion

[Bart Schaefer]

On Mar 6,  8:37pm, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
}
} I noticed that symlinks are always completed with the trailing slash

I presume you mean symlinks whose targets are directories?  If symlinks
whose targets are files are getting a trailing slash, that would clearly
be strange.

} like directories, and unlike normal files.  This can be problematic if
} the user runs `rm -r` on a symlink by mistake.

Does autoremoveslash not take the slash away again before the command
is executed?  It certainly does for me.

In any case I'd say running rm -r by mistake is a problem independent of
how the file name was completed.  If you have a rash of people running
rm -r accidentally, why aren't you worried about real directories?

} Is this really a bug, or am I misunderstanding something?

The assumption is that when completing a directory (whether symlink
or not), there's every likelyhood that the directory itself is not the
end result, and you're going to continue completing other files down
the tree.  The slash is appended to (a) make that obvious and (b) not
require that you switch back and forth between TAB and / keys in order
to continue completing (unless the directory name itself was part of
an ambiguous list).

Re: Completion: smarter symlink completion

[Ramkumar Ramachandra]

Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Mar 6,  8:37pm, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> }
> } I noticed that symlinks are always completed with the trailing slash
>
> I presume you mean symlinks whose targets are directories?  If symlinks
> whose targets are files are getting a trailing slash, that would clearly
> be strange.
>
> } like directories, and unlike normal files.  This can be problematic if
> } the user runs `rm -r` on a symlink by mistake.
>
> Does autoremoveslash not take the slash away again before the command
> is executed?  It certainly does for me.

AUTO_REMOVE_SLASH works, thanks.

> In any case I'd say running rm -r by mistake is a problem independent of
> how the file name was completed.  If you have a rash of people running
> rm -r accidentally, why aren't you worried about real directories?

Agreed.  I crafted the problem mostly out of theoretical interest; it
doesn't arise from a real-world itch.

> } Is this really a bug, or am I misunderstanding something?
>
> The assumption is that when completing a directory (whether symlink
> or not), there's every likelyhood that the directory itself is not the
> end result, and you're going to continue completing other files down
> the tree.  The slash is appended to (a) make that obvious and (b) not
> require that you switch back and forth between TAB and / keys in order
> to continue completing (unless the directory name itself was part of
> an ambiguous list).

Makes sense, thanks.  Yes, I'd want zsh to follow symlinks and operate
on the tree of the underlying directory.