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

Re: DEP-5 and files with white spaces

Le Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
> Is it to complex to have a syntax that is similar to what the shell
> does? Two solutions pop into my mind. Please let me know, why these are
> not use. You can point me to previous discussions.

Hi Benjamin,

You can refer to the following threads

1) DEP 5 and directory/file names with spaces

My summary is that the participants were quite divided on whether separating
the list of files by spaces or by commas.  Space-separation took advantage, as
the resulting list can be pasted directly in a shell.  The escaping syntax was
glob(7) at the time, but it allows patterns that the shell will not expand, so
the two wildcards * and ? were proposed.  My personal feeling is that more
complete syntax, like allowing shell quotes, did not make it because no
participant had patience or energy left for moving this forward.  But ‘shell
pastability’ is I think the conclusion.

2) DEP-5: an example parser, choice of syntax for Files:

Discussion on the original syntax based on the find command, where I reminded
the thread above; no objection.

3) DEP-5: file globbing

Discussion about exclusion patterns.

4) DEP-5: Files field and filename patterns

The simple globbing with * and ? was finally chosen.  It was noted that because
it is a lowest common denominator, it leaves the room for expansion later.

5)  Re: DEP5: CANDIDATE and ready for use in squeeze+1

In this thread, you questionned how to escape files with
a space in their names, and did not object to the answer from Lars.

The current syntax has been used for years, and while it can be perfected, I do
not think that such extension is in the scope of the version 1.0 that we are
preparing.  What I propose, if you think it is worth, is to open a bug, to
track that request for the next revision. 

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: