From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Using `call-process-shell-command' in `process-lines' Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:16:05 +0100 Message-ID: <474B45A5.3000602@gmail.com> References: <474B022C.8040508@gmail.com> <474B257F.3050709@gmail.com> <474B39D7.3010509@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1196115402 15769 80.91.229.12 (26 Nov 2007 22:16:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:16:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 26 23:16:47 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IwmFx-0007GM-JO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:16:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwmFi-0002xc-FZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:16:30 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IwmFe-0002xT-Nk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:16:26 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IwmFd-0002wo-FJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:16:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwmFd-0002wl-Cr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:16:25 -0500 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IwmFY-0003uh-AV; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:16:20 -0500 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:64369 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IwmFW-0007vE-3H; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:16:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071125-0, 2007-11-25), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-ACL-Warn: Too high rate of unknown addresses received from you X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1IwmFW-0007vE-3H. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1IwmFW-0007vE-3H a83630dfa8189f6156ededdb34515e67 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:84187 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:25:43 +0100 >> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" >> CC: lekktu@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >>>> find -name *l.el >>>> find -name m*.el >>>> find -name "*.el" >>> Sheer luck, the first tow ones. You _must_ quote the wildcard to get >>> predictable behavior. >>> >>>> Is anyone able to understand what is going on? >>> I explained that in another message. >> I think there is more to it. I suspect that the find arg parsing code >> handles a single "*" differently and that this is a bug. > > What do you mean by ``find arg parsing code''? Quoted wildcards are > parsed by the application code called from `find's `main' function, > while unquoted wildcards are parsed by the startup code which runs > before `main'. These two are different: the former uses GNU `fnmatch' > function (and thus you can use wildcards like "[a-d]*.el"), while the > latter uses a function from Microsoft' runtime, which supports only > the limited Windows semantics of wildcards. I mean the code that it is called from find's main function. But I am not sure what runs when. Actually the two calls below find -name "[ni]*.el" find -name [ni]*.el both works for me when I run them in cmd.exe. So both this seems to be parsed by find's main function. The case that fails is find -name *.el See also above for the two cases that might be "sheer luck". > But all this has no direct relation to the problem at hand. The > problem at hand is that we pass the "*.el" arg incorrectly to `find', > not what `find' does with it. >