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

[Miles Bader]

Mikhael Goikhman <address@hidden> writes:
>> > The "csh/tcsh" argument is bogus, please try to be accurate here.
>> 
>> Are you _trying_ to stir up flames?
>
> Nope, I am trying to be accurate. The "csh" argument was repeated several
> times and it is not accurate. At least all main shells support the
> convenient {substr1,substr2} syntax and it has a potential for conflicts.

The "csh argument" it is quite accurate:  arch only uses one such name,
"{arch}", and bash handles it fine, but csh/tcsh apparently screw it up
(I have no direct experience).

There is no suggestion that any {...}  names should ever be used except for
this one, so there is no potential for conflict with bash.

>> However, from what you've said, tcsh/csh actually _break_ commands
>> containing {arch}, whereas bash simply has (slight) completion
>> problems[*].  Gee, the former sounds rather worse than the latter...
>
> This tcsh problem is fixed by adding quotes. This is as easy and as
> incomprehensible for newbies as the numerous problems with other shells.

The difference is that bash-related problems only occur during completion,
the user will get immediate feedback before he types further, and is given
a chance to correct his mistake.  If the user doesn't know the work-around,
he can manually type the filename and the command will work correctly.

With the "{arch} in csh" problem, the user can type a perfectly fine
command line manually, hit RET, and _the command will be wrong_ -- he'll
get a confusing error in response (or worse:  try to use "rm -rf {arch}/m*"
to get rid of all patch-logs beginning with "m*" in a linux source
tree... :-O ).

-Miles
-- 
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
 you do it."  Mahatma Gandhi