Re: [PATCH] Add shell-quasiquote.

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer)
>> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:54:51 +0200
>> Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>,
>>      emacs-devel <address@hidden>
>> 
>> I didn't break anything, explained why I could not support non-POSIX
>> without Eli's help, asked for proper help, drafted a patch where he
>> could have just filled the blanks in documentation to declare the
>> required safety guarantees for non-POSIX systems, but nope...
>
> This is not about non-Posix shells (although that aspect did start
> this thread).  This is about using project-wide APIs for certain
> standard jobs.  That should have been a no-brainer, because it makes
> no sense to have several functions doing the same job in subtly
> different ways.
>
> So you were politely requested to call that function for quoting shell
> arguments in your package.  Doing that is the only thing that stands
> in the way of accepting your package on ELPA.  AFAIK, there were no
> other comments.
>
> If you think shell-quote-argument should be changed, feel free to
> submit a patch proposal to that effect, and state there your reasons
> for the changes.  If they are accepted, all Lisp programs in Emacs
> that need to quote command arguments will work that way, and everybody
> will win by having a better Emacs.

I've already provided an extensive explanation of the problem with
shell-quote-argument, what the solution to that problem is, and provided
a patch to apply that solution.

The patch was turned down.  (By you.)

> I cannot understand why you insist on tying your contribution with two
> orthogonal issues: what and how should be quoted, and what should be
> in the doc string.  By doing this, you prevent acceptance of your
> package, which IMO is a pity.

I don't know what you mean with "what and how should be quoted."

The doc string can serve as a clear declaration of strict safety
guarantees that will make the function appropriate for my use case.
Until that's done, the function is not appropriate for my use case
because it does not declare the guarantees necessary for my use case.

In practical terms, as explained before, this means that someone editing
the function in the future may insert bugs into it which, from what I've
gathered from other posts in the thread, it indeed also had in the past.

It has also not been verified whether it's void of such bugs for systems
other than POSIX, which is why I left declaring that to you; my patches
were only adding the declaration of safety for POSIX, which I've made
very sure of and gladly take responsibility for.

All of these things I've already said before, multiple times, with
different wording, every time as clearly as I could.

Taylan