From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: info inconsistency about "Shell Commands in Dired" Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:36:03 -0500 (CDT) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200408252236.i7PMa3913735@raven.dms.auburn.edu> References: <20040821.040855.00470268.jet@gyve.org> <200408212249.i7LMncn06287@raven.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1093473420 19346 80.91.224.253 (25 Aug 2004 22:37:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:37:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jet@gyve.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 26 00:36:49 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1C06Nt-0008KB-00 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:36:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C06SU-0001S9-0K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:41:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C06SN-0001RE-2c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:41:27 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C06SL-0001QP-UG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:41:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C06SL-0001Q3-ML for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:41:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C06NN-0007kK-Ht; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:36:17 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.dms.auburn.edu (raven.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.29]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7PMa4uE014643; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:36:07 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by raven.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id i7PMa3913735; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:36:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:26:03 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:26503 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:26503 Richard Stallman wrote: If you want to use `*' as a shell wildcard with whitespace around it, write `*""'. In the shell, this is equivalent to `*'; but since the `*' is not surrounded by whitespace, Dired does not treat it specially. I expect that this rule does in fact apply to ? just as to *, Yes. It is worth thinking about. I saw people discussing other methods, %s and envvars. The envvar method is too inconvenient. %s might be acceptable; people mainly discussed how to implement it. Let's compare these two methods in terms of desirability as features. I believe that the method I proposed offers the least deviation from the current syntax. Of course, while ?'' will be useful in several situations, *'' will very seldom (if ever) be, unless only one file is marked. I nevertheless would make the syntax work for * too, for consistency. Sincerely, Luc.