[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug#1212: 23.0.60; split-string-and-unquote problems

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: bug#1212: 23.0.60; split-string-and-unquote problems
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:43:20 +0200

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:58:49 -0400
> >> The list of strings will be passed to call-process or start-process
> >> which ultimately will pass them to execv or somesuch: no shell in sight.
> > But the original string could have been a properly quoted shell
> > command, and those do use sh-style quoting.
> I do not understand: what makes you think it could be a properly quoted
> shell command?

Because you said that working with shell commands was why these
functions were invented in the first place.  And that is how they are
used in Emacs as of now.

> /We/ define what it can accept.

But hopefully, /we/ decide that to accomplish some specific practical
goal, not just to craft a function that accepts a small subset of that
goal.  Right?  So what class of _practical_ problems do these two
functions solve?  After all, using Lisp syntax in shell commands is
not an interesting use-case, is it?

> And as of now, we (well, admittedly,
> IIUC, it's mostly just myself) decided that it accepts a syntax derived
> from Elisp string quoting, so if you feed it sh-style quoted strings, it
> won't work in general (tho it will if you stick to the common subset, of
> course).

Are you saying that modes that work with shell commands, such as GUD,
should not use these functions, because they don't generally support
the full syntax of quoted shell commands?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]