From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id BAA26922 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 01:34:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA17362; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 11:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 11:28:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <9607170829.ZM5885@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 08:29:45 -0700 In-Reply-To: Christoph von Stuckrad "Re: Completion behavior change in 3.0-pre3" (Jul 17, 11:52am) References: Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 24feb96 Caldera) To: "C. v. Stuckrad" Subject: Re: Completion behavior change in 3.0-pre3 Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"WEvT23.0.AF4.iQGxn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1682 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Jul 17, 11:52am, Christoph von Stuckrad wrote: > Subject: Re: Completion behavior change in 3.0-pre3 > On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Bart Schaefer wrote: > > > Here's zsh 3.0-pre3: > > > > zagzig<3> echo z*i > > (feep) > > zagzig<3> echo z\*i > > Isn't this a feature instead of a bug ? Given that Zoltan didn't mention this as an intentional change, I don't think it's meant to be a feature. > THIS 'z\*i' is exactly what would be used on the input line if the > pattern doesn't glob I *might* agree if I had GLOB_COMPLETE set; but I don't, so it should be waiting for me to make the pattern unambiguous before it decides that it has to quote anything. Even with GLOB_COMPLETE, I can't really go along with you; performing completion/expansion shouldn't change the *semantics* of the command line: touch z*i # Fails with "no match" touch z\*i # Creates a new file In effect, zsh should never rewrite the line when it (feep)s, only when it successfully expands or completes something. > So if this behaviour depends on 'nonomatch' I would appreciate it! I don't have nonomatch set either. (Gad, that sounds illiterate. A triple negative? Anyway, it doesn't depend on nonomatch.) > If not, well, I think one can get used to it. Get used to backing up to remove quoting from every glob pattern on the line after every completion? Or get used to not using completion?