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: ! in Dired--what was the outcome? Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:01:16 -0500 (CDT) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200410130301.i9D31GM02856@raven.dms.auburn.edu> References: <87vfdgezro.fsf@jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1097636576 26324 80.91.229.6 (13 Oct 2004 03:02:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 13 05:02:43 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 1CHZPW-0002ZO-00 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:02:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHZWW-0006pA-IT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:09:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CHZWN-0006ov-6L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:09:47 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CHZWM-0006oj-Ne for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:09:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHZWM-0006og-Ke for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:09:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CHZPB-0005C3-3P; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:02:21 -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 i9D32KiU026130; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:02:20 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by raven.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id i9D31GM02856; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:01:16 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: juri@jurta.org In-reply-to: <87vfdgezro.fsf@jurta.org> (message from Juri Linkov on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:12:43 +0300) 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:28339 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28339 Juri Linkov wrote: Here is a short example what this would look like: \*f - all marked file names \?f - each marked file name \*d - all marked file names with directory \?d - each marked file name with directory \*x - all marked file names without extensions \?x - each marked file name without extension \*(s-expr) - s-expression evaluated on all files \?(s-expr) - s-expression evaluated on each file, where rules for finding the end of s-expression are the same as those used for \,(...) in query-replace I guess you also would need a rule that if Emacs sees \\* or \\? it actually passes \* or \? to the shell to allow _literal_ *'s and ?'s in file names. Then all of that would have to be documented in the Emacs manual. Maybe I should mention a possible simpler solution, proposed in private email by Johan Vromans to use {} instead of ?, in analogy with the -exec argument of find(1). mv {} .{}.uu I do not know whether we then also should use () or [] or such instead of * for consistency. The idea is to get rid of confusion with shell wildcards. I guess it actually even is possible to use "" and '' instead of ? and *. Why do we absolutely want to use shell wildcards for this? Sincerely, Luc.