[Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly

[Mikhael Goikhman]

On 17 Oct 2004 11:05:41 +0100, Stig Brautaset wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 09:44:12AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > You mean, whose who like the {files} names do not use zsh or tcsh.
> > 
> > As for +files and =files, the users of all shells unnecessarily suffer.
> 
> I don't see why. I use zsh and it has no problems with {arch}, +files or
> =files. My programs (including my editor) are not too keen on the
> +files, but that is easily overcome by typing ./ in front. 

This was said not once. The +files problem is shell agnostic as you say.
To complete literal {substr} in a file name one should quote or backslash
it in zsh. Similarly with plain =files:

  % cd subdir/.arch-ids; ls -l =id
  -rwxr-xr-x  1 root root 16752 Mar 16  2004 /usr/bin/id

> > Using ,files to indicate temporary files causes less real-life conflicts.
> > It does conflict with {file1,file2} syntax of all shells though.
> 
> True, but this seems a rather artificial gripe. I'd be interested to
> know: have you ever actually needed to use that syntax with junk files?

I use shell syntax {substr1,substr2} whenever possible, very convenient.
Yes, I actually used  /some/project/{\,\,undo,\,\,commit,blib}*  once.
Unfortunately, even if zsh does a great job at completing this syntax,
it still looks like an unsafe mess to use when combined with "rm -rf".
(It is enough you leave out one backslash to delete your entire tree.)

BTW, zsh has an option to handle {substr} like tcsh does, i.e. to expand
it to one choice that is "substr". Personally, I think this is a desired
and consistent behaviour in many my cases, regardless of what POSIX says.

The current arch's naming scheme is pretty inconvenient. You may get used
to it, but you can't claim it is shell friendly (whether your shell is
bash, tcsh or zsh). This is not to deny that in a fantazy world with arch
and no other citizens, such naming scheme would possibly rock.

Regards,
Mikhael.