From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Using `call-process-shell-command' in `process-lines' Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:04:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: <474B022C.8040508@gmail.com> <474B257F.3050709@gmail.com> <474B39D7.3010509@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1196114661 13147 80.91.229.12 (26 Nov 2007 22:04:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 26 23:04:26 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 1Iwm41-0002iW-Pd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:04:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwm3m-0006NZ-GB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:04:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwm3i-0006NE-KH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:04:06 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwm3f-0006Mm-Cf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:04:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iwm3f-0006Mj-7t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:04:03 -0500 Original-Received: from heller.inter.net.il ([213.8.233.23]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Iwm3e-0000Kj-8v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:04:02 -0500 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([81.5.42.135]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id EFO44210 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:03:58 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <474B39D7.3010509@gmail.com> (lennart.borgman@gmail.com) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.4) (2) 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:84186 Archived-At: > 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. 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.