From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dima Kogan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Syntax of "-" in shell-mode Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 10:49:40 -0700 Message-ID: <8760sh49u3.fsf@secretsauce.net> References: <87y45ucnyx.fsf@secretsauce.net> <87wplecn6s.fsf@secretsauce.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467913855 25978 80.91.229.3 (7 Jul 2016 17:50:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Drew Adams , Emacs developers To: Ivan Andrus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 07 19:50:44 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bLDRk-0001wj-7Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 19:50:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41520 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLDRj-0003Er-M9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:50:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49016) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLDRZ-0003Ca-JZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:50:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLDRU-0001NO-1k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:50:32 -0400 Original-Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:44522) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLDRR-0001Lr-Jh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:50:27 -0400 Original-Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7320820349; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:50:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secretsauce.net; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=+kkwq f3C3MtC9J7t4dEtBD8rINE=; b=hQ2JO5dJrS+PFDpeCIhegR458aB9KtlojOQwR h8uyfqHrDkTRgH+iym4CyNtIv2rUZoxI8SsLZklxZNdg6n05a2nO0YNEO7JN1bPQ IUr9GJEDd7i8139L35kSIFcYktZ1EK/87EcNLgAZEXG1v2YxhgaJrDyxBDgnSKsA DLfhD4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=+kkwqf3C3MtC9J7t4dEtBD8rINE=; b=dvfPa S/iWNkIW3t/5mYVQ8zssay89c9OI2Mabu8IgxqdBKJllCUOPaTqXe6KhKbeP6NF2 GdeZEEcwiZfh7XGvui2jxxRXtFo3q+fwid42GnpvtIn6TCaJK7VR/eVT+KR40i6y WKL+NA5wfZrsQDgcpC+pF5/mhNTEXOEudeHj+8= X-Sasl-enc: e4WoYS8WKe7CzJ7Pxhh1igV0NooSejD/ZgVgwFRFjrf7 1467913815 Original-Received: from shorty.local (guest-190.vonkarman.net [207.151.223.190]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 24947CCD26; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from dima by shorty.local with local (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1bLDRC-0006Be-Ns; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 10:50:10 -0700 User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 25.0.95.1 In-reply-to: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 66.111.4.27 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205362 Archived-At: Ivan Andrus writes: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Dima Kogan wrote: > >> Of course the true syntax depends on context, but in my experience, in >> shell commands "-" is a word far more often than it isn't. > > I disagree. They are symbols, not words. I don't want forward-word to skip > past dashes, that's a job for forward-sexp. OK. So I lived with this for a while, using xxx-sexp functions to interact with cmdline arguments in shell-mode. This works better than xxx-word functions because of its handling of - as you said. But -sexp functions treat . as a separator, so this still isn't ideal. I think it would be useful to have something (-word, -sexp, whatever) be able to operate on cmdline arguments in shell mode. Would it be more acceptable to adjust the internals of -sexp instead of -word in this context? dima