From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1969 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 19:14:27 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (HELO sunsite.auc.dk) (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 13 Dec 2000 19:14:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 25507 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2000 19:14:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13266 Received: (qmail 25500 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2000 19:14:18 -0000 To: "Bart Schaefer" Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: :r modifier References: <1001213041501.ZM11124@candle.brasslantern.com> <1001213172105.ZM12198@candle.brasslantern.com> From: Alexandre Duret-Lutz X-Home-Page: http://www.epita.fr/~duret_g/ X-Attribution: adl Organization: LRDE/EPITA http://www.lrde.epita.fr/ Date: 13 Dec 2000 20:21:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:21:05 +0000" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: Alexandre Duret-Lutz >>> "Bart" == Bart Schaefer writes: [...] Bart> You're assuming that :r is used exclusively on unix Bart> file-paths and should employ unix file-path semantics, Right, I'm shortsighted (didn't think at all about the non-unix world -- does it *really* exist? :o)). Bart> but parameter values are just strings. But these modifers are somewhat useless on strings which are not filenames, aren't they? :h and :t are documented to works on `pathnames'; my wish is to document :e and :r as working on `filename extesions'. Bart> Suppose we change it to pay attention to slashes. Does Bart> that mean that on cygwin it should also pay attention to Bart> backslashes? I'd say yes: stick to the filename definition used on the host whenever possible. (Here I'm feeling that I ask too much!) Bart> :Do we need to teach :h/:t about the leading-double-slash Bart> convention for some networked file systems? I don't know, I never seen such file systems. But I'm already confused by the current behiavor of :h on repeated slashes: % x=abc///def % echo $x:h abc// % echo $x:h:h abc/ (My dream is that repeated slashes would be treated as a single slash; but I'm probably again assuming filesystem specific convention) [...] -- Alexandre Duret-Lutz