On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:53:10PM +0100, Michele La Monaca wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Peter Bex <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Do you have a reference where we can read up on this "caret escaping"? > > I think you already provided one: > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc723564.aspx
I found its treatment about caret escaping confusing after your statement that there's a difference between paths and non-paths. The description from technet seems to indicate it has the same functionality as \ in UNIX. > > If it's context-dependent it seems like it would be impossible to decide > > generally which to use, > > Right. In Windows escape/quoting rules really depends on which command > is issued. The interpretation of the command-line is mostly up to the > command itself. And each command has its own interpretation of the > rules. An example? > > # cd a^ b > > will try to enter the "a b" folder, while > > # md a^ b > > will create the folders "a" and "b". What about these two? # cd "a b" and # md "a b" > > and we might need an extra option to choose between both quoting forms > > (abusing the "quoting" option for this is > > wrong because the difference in Windows is semantical while in Unix it > > seems to be purely aesthetical). > > Not quite true. For example backslash-escaping has this nice property: > > (qs (string-append s1 s2)) == (string-append (qs s1) (qs s2)) If this is desirable or neccessary, we should just stick with backslash escaping, if we can make it work properly (that is, without a blacklist). Having two separate styles of escaping is needlessly complex and confusing. Good design involves trade-offs and making decisions, rather than punting on every decision and forcing it upon the user. Especially when it's unclear whether both styles are equally safe! Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
