lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

Addition of this file triggers the following warning message when
compiling in the lisp subdirectory:

  In toplevel form:
  gnus/.dir-locals.el:1:1:Warning: `(emacs-lisp-mode (show-trailing-whitespace
      . t))' is a malformed function

FWIW, I don't understand why this file was added in the first place.
The commit message gives a reason, but I don't see how it justifies
this file in this single directory; it sounds more like personal
preferences, which should not be in the repository.

In addition, the change is not mentioned in the ChangeLog.

At the very least, the file should be marked as "no-byte-compile", or
something else should be done to avoid this warning.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Stefan Monnier]

> FWIW, I don't understand why this file was added in the first place.
> The commit message gives a reason, but I don't see how it justifies
> this file in this single directory; it sounds more like personal
> preferences, which should not be in the repository.

I think it's a project-preference.  So I think it's acceptable.

> At the very least, the file should be marked as "no-byte-compile", or
> something else should be done to avoid this warning.

You could also argue that the byte-compler should know better than to
try and byte-compile a file called ".dir-locals.el" which we hence know
doesn't hold Elisp code (only Elisp data).


        Stefan

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>,  Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 10:34:13 +0200
> 
> > At the very least, the file should be marked as "no-byte-compile", or
> > something else should be done to avoid this warning.
> 
> You could also argue that the byte-compler should know better than to
> try and byte-compile a file called ".dir-locals.el" which we hence know
> doesn't hold Elisp code (only Elisp data).

That'd be fine, too.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

>> At the very least, the file should be marked as "no-byte-compile", or
>> something else should be done to avoid this warning.
>
> You could also argue that the byte-compler should know better than to
> try and byte-compile a file called ".dir-locals.el" which we hence know
> doesn't hold Elisp code (only Elisp data).

That's special-casing the byte-compiler, when we already have a
perfectly good way to tell it to ignore a file.

(Not to mention that, though strongly non-recommended, the value of
`dir-locals-file' could be locally different in any given project and
so the name of the locals file.)

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Glenn Morris]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Addition of this file triggers the following warning message when
> compiling in the lisp subdirectory:

How are you "compiling in the lisp subdirectory"? Presumably not
bootstrapping, since that doesn't seem to pick up dotfiles.
`make recompile'? If so, perhaps it's not too egregious to add a check
for dir-locals-file to byte-recompile-directory. It already has a few
special case for CVS directories, etc.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Stefan Monnier]

> `make recompile'? If so, perhaps it's not too egregious to add a check
> for dir-locals-file to byte-recompile-directory. It already has a few
> special case for CVS directories, etc.

Yes, patch welcome,


        Stefan

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 03:23, Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> wrote:

> How are you "compiling in the lisp subdirectory"? Presumably not
> bootstrapping, since that doesn't seem to pick up dotfiles.

At least on Windows, bootstraping *does* compile lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el.

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:23:38 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Addition of this file triggers the following warning message when
> > compiling in the lisp subdirectory:
> 
> How are you "compiling in the lisp subdirectory"? Presumably not
> bootstrapping, since that doesn't seem to pick up dotfiles.
> `make recompile'? If so, perhaps it's not too egregious to add a check
> for dir-locals-file to byte-recompile-directory. It already has a few
> special case for CVS directories, etc.

Yes, "make recompile".

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:01:49 +0200
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 03:23, Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > How are you "compiling in the lisp subdirectory"? Presumably not
> > bootstrapping, since that doesn't seem to pick up dotfiles.
> 
> At least on Windows, bootstraping *does* compile lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el.

Because it uses the `recompile' target.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Glenn Morris]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Yes, "make recompile".

Hopefully fixed now.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Glenn Morris]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> At least on Windows, bootstraping *does* compile lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el.
>
> Because it uses the `recompile' target.

It does? That's slightly broken. Bootstrap should compile every file
in a separate Emacs instance, so that later compilations cannot be
affected by earlier ones.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:05:55 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >> At least on Windows, bootstraping *does* compile lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el.
> >
> > Because it uses the `recompile' target.
> 
> It does?

Sorry, that was my faulty memory.  No, it doesn't.  It compiles all
the *.el files one by one, each one in a separate instance of Emacs.

So Juanma's question is still valid: how does the Unix build avoid
compiling gnus/.dir-locals.el?

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 19:18, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> So Juanma's question is still valid: how does the Unix build avoid
> compiling gnus/.dir-locals.el?

I think Glenn just said it: apparently, on Unix it does not compile dotfiles.

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:54:09 +0200
> Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 19:18, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > So Juanma's question is still valid: how does the Unix build avoid
> > compiling gnus/.dir-locals.el?
> 
> I think Glenn just said it: apparently, on Unix it does not compile dotfiles.

How does it do that?

Ignoring dotfiles on Unix is not magic nor OS-level trick: an
application, such as `ls', must actively omit them from processing.
Where are they omitted during bootstrap's byte compilation?

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 21:26, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> How does it do that?
>
> Ignoring dotfiles on Unix is not magic nor OS-level trick: an
> application, such as `ls', must actively omit them from processing.
> Where are they omitted during bootstrap's byte compilation?

I don't know the Unix makefiles well enough, but I suppose they use
the shell to gather the list of files to compile, and AFAIK, on Unix
shells the expansion of *.el will not include dotfiles.

On Windows we use

	for %%f in (. $(WINS)) do for %%g in (%%f/*.el) do \

and %f/*.el does include all .el files.

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:35:27 +0200
> Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> I don't know the Unix makefiles well enough, but I suppose they use
> the shell to gather the list of files to compile, and AFAIK, on Unix
> shells the expansion of *.el will not include dotfiles.

If that's how it works, it's not a clean solution, IMO.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 21:42, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> If that's how it works, it's not a clean solution, IMO.

"[N]ot a clean solution" is eli-speak for "it works by happenstance", isn't?

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:46:21 +0200
> Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 21:42, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > If that's how it works, it's not a clean solution, IMO.
> 
> "[N]ot a clean solution" is eli-speak for "it works by happenstance", isn't?

Or by non-obvious black magic.

Anyway, I think Glenn fixed that in the byte compiler, so the problem
should go away on Windows as well now.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 22:28, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> Or by non-obvious black magic.

Yeah, that too.

> Anyway, I think Glenn fixed that in the byte compiler, so the problem
> should go away on Windows as well now.

If you're talking about this change:

  ------------------------------------------------------------
  revno: 101384
  committer: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
  branch nick: trunk
  timestamp: Wed 2010-09-08 08:59:10 -0700
  message:
    * emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el (byte-recompile-directory): Ignore dir-locals-file.

it does not work, at least on Windows. Bootstrapping still generates
lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.elc.

I've double-checked that the .elc is not a leftover from a pre-101384
build (moreover, I thoroughly clean the workspace before each
bootstrap).

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:57:26 +0200
> Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
>   revno: 101384
>   committer: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
>   branch nick: trunk
>   timestamp: Wed 2010-09-08 08:59:10 -0700
>   message:
>     * emacs-lisp/bytecomp.el (byte-recompile-directory): Ignore dir-locals-file.
> 
> it does not work, at least on Windows. Bootstrapping still generates
> lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.elc.

How about filing a bug report, then?

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Glenn Morris]

>> it does not work, at least on Windows. Bootstrapping still generates
>> lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.elc.

It was only supposed to fix the Unix `make recompile'. There is no
bootstrap issue on Unix builds.

> How about filing a bug report, then?

If Emacs is explicitly passed a file name via batch-byte-compile, IMO
it ought to try and compile that file regardless of its name. So
either change the Windows build to exclude dotfiles, or simply add a
no-byte-compile cookie to any .dir-locals.el that might be added below
lisp/.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 23:16, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> How about filing a bug report, then?

I don't consider it a bug, really. As I said, I think
`dir-locals-file' files should include ;; no-byte-compile: t

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 23:25, Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> wrote:

> It was only supposed to fix the Unix `make recompile'. There is no
> bootstrap issue on Unix builds.

Because of the fact that *.el does not expand dotfiles. Which is, as
Eli said, black magic.

> If Emacs is explicitly passed a file name via batch-byte-compile, IMO
> it ought to try and compile that file regardless of its name. So
> either change the Windows build to exclude dotfiles

That could be a bit of a PITA.

> or simply add a
> no-byte-compile cookie to any .dir-locals.el that might be added below
> lisp/.

Yes, I proposed as much a few messages ago. Apparently, Stefan disagrees.

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:08:57 +0200
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > or simply add a
> > no-byte-compile cookie to any .dir-locals.el that might be added below
> > lisp/.
> 
> Yes, I proposed as much a few messages ago. Apparently, Stefan disagrees.

He does?  Stefan, why do you object?  .dir-locals.el is not a valid
Lisp file, so it can never be compiled successfully, except by chance.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > or simply add a no-byte-compile cookie to any .dir-locals.el that
>> > might be added below lisp/.
>> Yes, I proposed as much a few messages ago. Apparently, Stefan disagrees.
> He does?  Stefan, why do you object?  .dir-locals.el is not a valid
> Lisp file, so it can never be compiled successfully, except by chance.

I only disagreed that adding such a line was a better solution than to
fix `recompile'.  Just like using "*.el" (which is documented on Unix
to skip hidden files) is a better solution.  But if Windows does not
offer any similar solution, then adding a cookie is perfectly fine
by me.


        Stefan

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:52, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> But if Windows does not offer any similar solution,
> then adding a cookie is perfectly fine by me.

Done.

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:52:02 +0200
> 
> > Stefan, why do you object?  .dir-locals.el is not a valid
> > Lisp file, so it can never be compiled successfully, except by chance.
> 
> I only disagreed that adding such a line was a better solution than to
> fix `recompile'.

Glenn fixed `recompile', but that does not help "make bootstrap",
because the latter byte-compiles each .el file in a separate Emacs, it
doesn't use `recompile'.

> Just like using "*.el" (which is documented on Unix to skip hidden
> files) is a better solution.

When the w32 Emacs is built using a Unixy shell, the dot-files can be
skipped as they are on Unix.  But we also support building Emacs with
the stock Windows shell, which knows nothing about dot-files.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > Stefan, why do you object?  .dir-locals.el is not a valid
>> > Lisp file, so it can never be compiled successfully, except by chance.
>> I only disagreed that adding such a line was a better solution than to
>> fix `recompile'.
> Glenn fixed `recompile', but that does not help "make bootstrap",
> because the latter byte-compiles each .el file in a separate Emacs, it
> doesn't use `recompile'.

>> Just like using "*.el" (which is documented on Unix to skip hidden
>> files) is a better solution.
> When the w32 Emacs is built using a Unixy shell, the dot-files can be
> skipped as they are on Unix.  But we also support building Emacs with
> the stock Windows shell, which knows nothing about dot-files.

Is there some other way to let the lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el be hidden so
the Windows shell doesn't list it in its "glob" output?


        Stefan

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Wojciech Meyer]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stefan Monnier
<monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> Is there some other way to let the lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el be hidden so
> the Windows shell doesn't list it in its "glob" output?

Cmd.exe does not glob, but
attrib +H lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el
will hide it.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Stefan Monnier]

> Cmd.exe does not glob, but
> attrib +H lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el
> will hide it.

Juanma said:

   On Windows we use
   	for %%f in (. $(WINS)) do for %%g in (%%f/*.el) do \
   and %f/*.el does include all .el files.

so there is some kind of "globbing", apparently in the tools we use
on Windows.  So is there some way to keep .dir-local.el from appearing
in the expansion of %f/*.el, or otherwise to use some other way to list
the files that will exclude the .dir-locals.el file?


        Stefan

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:50, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> so there is some kind of "globbing", apparently in the tools we use
> on Windows.  So is there some way to keep .dir-local.el from appearing
> in the expansion of %f/*.el, or otherwise to use some other way to list
> the files that will exclude the .dir-locals.el file?

Simple and portable across the many COMMAND.COM/CMD.EXE incarnations,
I very much doubt it.

Non-simple, I suppose we could try to add an IF to exclude dotfiles or
somesuch, but it won't be pretty I think.

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Wojciech Meyer]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:50, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
>> so there is some kind of "globbing", apparently in the tools we use
>> on Windows.  So is there some way to keep .dir-local.el from appearing
>> in the expansion of %f/*.el, or otherwise to use some other way to list
>> the files that will exclude the .dir-locals.el file?
>
> Simple and portable across the many COMMAND.COM/CMD.EXE incarnations,
> I very much doubt it.
>
> Non-simple, I suppose we could try to add an IF to exclude dotfiles or
> somesuch, but it won't be pretty I think.
>
>     Juanma
>

I don't know the issue, but perhaps moving to the directory?
Mine 2 cents,
Wojciech

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:10, Wojciech Meyer
<wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I don't know the issue, but perhaps moving to the directory?

Sorry, I don't understand.

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Wojciech Meyer]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:10, Wojciech Meyer
> <wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know the issue, but perhaps moving to the directory?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand.

No - i don't clearly understand the problem.
Moving to a directory probably would avoid globing this file, that's
what i am saying.

Wojciech

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:59, Wojciech Meyer
<wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Moving to a directory probably would avoid globing this file, that's
> what i am saying.

I still don't understand *what* would you move to a directory. The
.dir-locals.el file? And how would that help?

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Wojciech Meyer]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:59, Wojciech Meyer
> <wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Moving to a directory probably would avoid globing this file, that's
>> what i am saying.
>
> I still don't understand *what* would you move to a directory. The
> .dir-locals.el file? And how would that help?

Yes this file to some temporary directory to avoid `Cmd.exe'
expansion, but that's just
a random idea. I neither know much about Emacs internals nor about
windows (build)
peculiarities. So sorry I can't help.

Wojciech

src/.dir-locals.el and lisp/.dir-locals.el (was: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el)

[Ted Zlatanov]

Is there any chance of setting up src/.dir-locals.el with the right
indent and show-whitespace settings for the C source?  It's a pain to
switch back and forth for me since at some places I'm forced to use a
non-GNU code style, and this would benefit everyone I think.

Ditto for lisp/.dir-locals.el.

Ted

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:16:47 +0200
> 
> Is there some other way to let the lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el be hidden so
> the Windows shell doesn't list it in its "glob" output?

The Windows shells don't glob.  The globbing happens in the startup
code of the applications that get the wildcard as their arguments (not
relevant to this case, see my other mail).

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:10:53 +0100
> From: Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> attrib +H lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el
> will hide it.

Yes, but what will that solve?  We will need to "hide" each new
.dir-locals.el, and then probably re-hide them whenever they are
updated in the repository.  Hardly a solution to the problem.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:50:13 +0200
> 
> Juanma said:
> 
>    On Windows we use
>    	for %%f in (. $(WINS)) do for %%g in (%%f/*.el) do \
>    and %f/*.el does include all .el files.
> 
> so there is some kind of "globbing", apparently in the tools we use
> on Windows.

It's the FOR command that globs, and only inside the parens.

> So is there some way to keep .dir-local.el from appearing
> in the expansion of %f/*.el, or otherwise to use some other way to list
> the files that will exclude the .dir-locals.el file?

There's nothing special in files that begin with a dot, as far as
Windows shells or "globbing" is concerned.  And .dir-locals.el is just
a normal files, apart of the fact that its name starts with a dot.  So
I don't really understand what you are asking.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:03:23 +0200
> Cc: Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:50, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> 
> Non-simple, I suppose we could try to add an IF to exclude dotfiles or
> somesuch, but it won't be pretty I think.

I would object to even think about such a possibility, let alone get
it into the repository.  All that to exclude a single file?

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Wojciech Meyer]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:03:23 +0200
>> Cc: Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:50, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Non-simple, I suppose we could try to add an IF to exclude dotfiles or
>> somesuch, but it won't be pretty I think.
>
> I would object to even think about such a possibility, let alone get
> it into the repository.  All that to exclude a single file?
>

Let's sumarize:

- windows does not hide dot-files
- FOR globbing or any other globbing does not have exclude pattern
- and there is no pattern to use file attributes
- let's say it: windows globbing is too simple to handle this case
(i would say Bash non extended globbing would be not sufficient).

So I don't see a possible solution for it, unless it is changing an extension,
moving somewhere else to move back, cooking file lists, performing globbing
ourselves, using Msys... etc.

just mine 2 cents......

Wojciech

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Lennart Borgman]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:03:23 +0200
>> Cc: Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:50, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Non-simple, I suppose we could try to add an IF to exclude dotfiles or
>> somesuch, but it won't be pretty I think.
>
> I would object to even think about such a possibility, let alone get
> it into the repository.  All that to exclude a single file?

Two files, "." and ".." if that matters.

But I do not understand the objections. What does "pretty" have to do
with if it is possible, quite simple and stable?

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Stefan Monnier]

>> so there is some kind of "globbing", apparently in the tools we use
>> on Windows.
> It's the FOR command that globs, and only inside the parens.

OK, thanks, so can we now agree that there is globbing performed by one
of the tools we use?
So the question is: does this globbing understand some notion of
"hidden" file (whether it obeys the "first dot" convention, of the
hidden-flag convention or any other).

>> So is there some way to keep .dir-local.el from appearing
>> in the expansion of %f/*.el, or otherwise to use some other way to list
>> the files that will exclude the .dir-locals.el file?

> There's nothing special in files that begin with a dot, as far as
> Windows shells or "globbing" is concerned.  And .dir-locals.el is just
> a normal files, apart of the fact that its name starts with a dot.  So
> I don't really understand what you are asking.

Whether there is something we can do to this file such that the globbing
will not include this file.


        Stefan

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 21:05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> I would object to even think about such a possibility, let alone get
> it into the repository.  All that to exclude a single file?

My feelings exactly.

    Juanma

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:07:42 +0100
> From: Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com>
> Cc: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> - let's say it: windows globbing is too simple to handle this case

Let's say it: the solution that uses shell globbing to hide some files
is unclean and non-portable.  We have Emacs at our fingertips, and all
we can come up with is Bourne shell trickery that will not even
survive trivial changes in the Makefile?  Shame on us.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:26:53 +0200
> Cc: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>, wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com, 
> 	monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Two files, "." and ".." if that matters.

No, one file: .dir-locals.el.  The ones you mention are directories.

> But I do not understand the objections. What does "pretty" have to do
> with if it is possible, quite simple and stable?

Because it is neither "quite simple" nor "stable".  Please re-read the
thread.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> Cc: wojciech.meyer@googlemail.com, lekktu@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 01:06:05 +0200
> 
> > There's nothing special in files that begin with a dot, as far as
> > Windows shells or "globbing" is concerned.  And .dir-locals.el is just
> > a normal files, apart of the fact that its name starts with a dot.  So
> > I don't really understand what you are asking.
> 
> Whether there is something we can do to this file such that the globbing
> will not include this file.

Nothing that would stick like the file name does.  I assume we want a
solution that will not need any special handling of the file whenever
it is updated, to restore its "glob-safe" nature.

Re: lisp/gnus/.dir-locals.el

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > There's nothing special in files that begin with a dot, as far as
>> > Windows shells or "globbing" is concerned.  And .dir-locals.el is just
>> > a normal files, apart of the fact that its name starts with a dot.  So
>> > I don't really understand what you are asking.
>> Whether there is something we can do to this file such that the globbing
>> will not include this file.
> Nothing that would stick like the file name does.  I assume we want a
> solution that will not need any special handling of the file whenever
> it is updated, to restore its "glob-safe" nature.

OK, so the file-local variable we have put is the best option here.


        Stefan