From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27444 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2016 20:26:32 -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: 38782 Received: (qmail 22152 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2016 20:26:31 -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-Originating-IP: [86.21.161.213] X-Spam: 0 X-Authority: v=2.1 cv=OJTapnuB c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=oo3MgO7t/4XyXFuSzI3dDQ==:117 a=oo3MgO7t/4XyXFuSzI3dDQ==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=q2GGsy2AAAAA:8 a=RP6f-Tr3y_JkgtYzxvQA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=z9dJwno5l634igLiVhy-:22 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:20:58 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Fix the ':A' word modifier on paths with '..' components. Message-ID: <20160703212058.07314f77@ntlworld.com> In-Reply-To: <160701090529.ZM9013@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <20160613085218.GA9572@tarsus.local2> <1466474004-4669-1-git-send-email-danielsh@tarsus.local2> <1466474004-4669-2-git-send-email-danielsh@tarsus.local2> <20160625162807.GA9840@tarsus.local2> <20160627002031.GA20366@tarsus.local2> <160628074851.ZM26955@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160701051106.GA31422@tarsus.local2> <160701090529.ZM9013@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:05:29 -0700 Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Jul 1, 5:11am, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > } Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Fix the ':A' word modifier on paths with '..' > } > } What's the use-case for the "resolve '..' before symlinks" behaviour? > } > } Was it an intentional design feature, or simply a documented bug? > } (Honest question.) > > PWS will have to weigh in on that one. The use-case may simply have > been the intention to make :A a superset of :a. I think making :A a superset of :a was all there was to it. I don't think there was any specific strategy for dealing with non-obvious cases involving "..". pws