Re: [Nmh-workers] I'm confused

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Ken,

> I look at this and I can't help thinking that's the wrong answer;
> getting shell quoting is hard enough, but having to double-quote it?
> That just seems like a mistake to me.

Well, it's sh it needs quoting from, not $SHELL, so it is known what
needs quoting, unlike the unknown quoting rules of $SHELL.

> Also, depending on "ls" output to get a list of files seems like
> that's fraught with problems as well.

Agreed, one can concoct awkward filenames that break the \n termination.
Perhaps this could be avoided using

    printf '%s\0' ...

to have $SHELL expand ... into words which then aren't re-evaluated
before being passed to printf(1), whether built-in or external.  It
gives NUL termination.

Another, correct?, fix that keeps the user's $SHELL involved is to not
use popen(3) which wraps with /bin/sh but do its work ourselves.  IIRC
that's what vim does with, e.g., `:ar'.

> I have an alternative suggestion: we ditch this code entirely and go
> to using glob(3).  I mean, that's 90% of what people really want
> anyway, right?

It would do and not be much of a surprise to most users.

> Expecting full-level shell interpretation at the WhatNow? prompt just
> seems wrong.

I'm in the "WhatNow? prompt just seems wrong" camp.  :-)

> Also, since the attach command is actually implemented using anno(1)
> functions, it seems like we should make a real "attach" command that
> can be used from the shell.  That would just call the right anno
> function, of course.

Sounds good.

Cheers, Ralph.