From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20092 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2016 10:29:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 38270 Received: (qmail 15817 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2016 10:29:48 -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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-f796c6d000001486-27-570b7c98ac41 Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:29:41 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh workers Subject: Re: Allow slash in alternation patterns in limited cases? Message-id: <20160411112941.579d8157@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: References: <160410151105.ZM21544@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160411093738.11406966@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xa7ozarjDDc7vlLQ42PyQyYHRY9XB D0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGSevahb8Yqv4/+UWUwPjMdYuRk4OCQETiYPNq5khbDGJC/fW s3UxcnEICSxllPh3tQvKmcEkce1RGwuEc45RYtKd74wQzllGifX//rF3MXJwsAioSuzf5Qsy ik3AUGLqptmMILYIULj5+z8WEFtYwEni1cOzbCA2r4C9xLyZt9lBbE6BYIkrBw+CxYUE/jNK TLtZD2LzC+hLXP37iQniPHuJmVfOMEL0Ckr8mHwPbCazgJbE5m1NrBC2vMTmNW+ZIeaoS9y4 u5t9AqPwLCQts5C0zELSsoCReRWjaGppckFxUnquoV5xYm5xaV66XnJ+7iZGSDB/2cG4+JjV IUYBDkYlHl6Ha1zhQqyJZcWVuYcYJTiYlUR4X+VzhwvxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLn nbvrfYiQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qB0e5f/7wLbVNe+QQ4LLgzs1Px+cSlRRU9k5Y1x9he nrG1ZqlM5noe7aR7cm63tGpWax3emrxGUeCE2d+eG4EfZG5tc2z698r50IoLe0V2adz7VKa+ VLX3R1nE+Rzub2xXhDiMZp70exG71PvjDilBxtBWldJy1qY+7v2JCd8UswN6RUyaanaoK7EU ZyQaajEXFScCACslbG1iAgAA On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:22:49 +0200 Mikael Magnusson wrote: > > But this is > > going to be inconsistent with pattern matching one way or another. So a > > different syntax would be more sensible. > > Doesn't this already work as is with pattern matching? Eg, I could do > /path/to/**/*~^(/path/to/a/dir/*|/path/to/some/other/files/*) > even though that would be insanely inefficient, especially when > /path/to is just /. "~" is already handled specially: we pass in a flag to say we're at top level so just keep going if you find a "/" after a "~". This is much easier as once we've seen the ~ we can relax --- no more handling of individual directories is needed as we're going to apply the exclusion in one go at the end (hence the suggestion of the new option to prune directories). This has always been the documented way in this case. pws