[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate? |
Date: |
12 Mar 2004 18:24:28 +0900 |
Jan Hudec <address@hidden> writes:
> % and @ are ok, as are + and ,. (Some of them are globbing as part of
> other constructs, however).
>
> > Yes, that question is facetious, but you probably get my point -- zsh
> > has gone nuts with giving special meanings to various characters, and
> > in general, unless you just give up and only use `A-Z and .', you can't
> > really win at this game.
>
> You can. Both + and , are ok, so arch kind of won it ;-).
I mean you can't win at the not-interfering-with-any-random-program-
that-decided-to-give-funky-interpretations-to-some-characters game.
Sure, the above are OK with zsh -- but whoops, zsh is cranky about =,
vim has a few problems with +, DOS has grabbed %, and ...
The current choices are basically pretty reasonable, I think.
Changing to other characters is just going to annoy people without
really solving `the problem' (such as it is).
For the most part, +/=/{ are not a part of everyday-life-with-arch
except sometimes where someone (note, _not_ tla the program) has chosen
to use = in the name of a source file; those people who are bothered by
the latter use can complain to the package maintainer I suppose.
, is used more often in an `offical role', but is one of the most
innocuous choices, and no one seems to be complaining about it.
-Miles
--
97% of everything is grunge
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, David A. Wheeler, 2004/03/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, David A. Wheeler, 2004/03/09
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Miles Bader, 2004/03/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Jan Hudec, 2004/03/11
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/12
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Miles Bader, 2004/03/13
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Jan Hudec, 2004/03/13
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Jani Monoses, 2004/03/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Tom Lord, 2004/03/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, David Brown, 2004/03/13
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, David A. Wheeler, 2004/03/10
RE: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Parker, Ron, 2004/03/10
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, David A. Wheeler, 2004/03/11