emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH] Add shell-quasiquote.


From: Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add shell-quasiquote.
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:41:26 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:

> Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
>
>> Who ever talked about running files in the current directory?
>
> It's normal to run files in the current directory. Any function that
> wants to run arbitrary shell commands needs to be able to do
> that. Concerns were raised about not being able to run arbitrary
> commands, so the topic is relevant.
>
>> the shell does not try to run the . file as a script, no matter what
>> PATH is.
>
> No, the shell command ". ." tries to run the . file as a script,
> assuming that PATH starts with ".:".
>
>> How is PATH even relevant to the topic?)
>
> PATH can be relevant if a shell command name lacks slashes.
>
> Admittedly it's weird to try to run "." as a shell script, but what
> can I say? This thread already went down that rabbit hole when the
> idea of running a command named "if" was raised. And "." is not a
> unique case here; for example, shqq won't run an executable named
> "break" either.

(shell-command (shqq (./foo bar baz)))
/bin/bash: ./foo: No such file or directory

I don't see a problem.

(In real code, I would use the string "./foo" instead because I feel
uneasy relying on ./foo being a valid symbol.)

I said (shqq (if ...)) will try to call e.g. /bin/if.  I said that this
is maybe slightly more useful and consistent.  I believe I was fairly
clear in the implication that this is a trivial matter, and pointed out
explicitly that I will use shell-quote-argument once the real problem
with it is fixed.  I never said that any (shqq (x ...)) will try to look
up x in PATH no matter what x is, or any other things you seem to have
taken from what I said.


Apologies if my previous answer was too hasty or unclear, but please
understand that I'm already very irritated because of the non-resolution
of the bug report despite providing a patch solving the exact problem,
and because of the continued unwillingness to accept the code refusing
to use shell-quote-argument despite that the reasons for refusing to use
it were explained in detail.

Taylan



reply via email to

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