Re: Shell completion on w32 uses "/" instead of "\"

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:13:27 +0100
> > From: Lennart Borgman <address@hidden>
> > CC:  address@hidden
> >
> >     
> > > cmdproxy is IMO the _only_ level where this should be done, because we
> > > are talking about rewriting commands typed by the user, to make them
> > > palatable to the Windows shells -- _precisely_ the job for which
> > > cmdproxy was invented.  Doing this on any other level would need
> > > introduction of too much knowledge of the shell semantics into places
> > > which don't want to know about that.  By contrast, cmdproxy already
> > > knows about shell semantics, and is meant to deal with that.
> > >   
> > >       
> > I doubt it is the correct place. The semantics of the shell is not 
> > sufficient as far as I can see to know enough about the program 
> > arguments. You also need to know the semantics used by the program in 
> > interpreting the arguments. If you do something like this
> >
> >      C:\> myprog "some/path/perhaps"
> >
> > how could cmdproxy know if the slashes should be changed to backslashes? 
> >     
>
> The case you were talking about originally was with the DIR command.
> That command is a CMD built-in, so cmdproxy can know everything about
> it.
>   

It was just an example, not the problem itself of course. The file name 
completion with TAB works for any program in a shell window. I am sure 
you not that. So the problem is there and I can not see the relevance in 
your argument above. Can you explain to me what you mean? Why is it 
relevant for the problem I described?

>   
> > On the other hand Emacs has this knowledge since you user wanted file 
> > completion with TAB. It would be very complicated to try to give this 
> > information to cmdproxy IMO.
> >     
>
> Again, this is a totally different issue, it has nothing at all to do
> with completion!  I could type the full command "dir foo/bar", and it
> would still fail, even though completion is not involved.
>   

Please be more relevant! Could you please rethink your arguments?