> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:13:27 +0100 > From: Lennart Borgman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [email protected] > > > cmdproxy is IMO the _only_ level where this should be done, because we > > are talking about rewriting commands typed by the user, to make them > > palatable to the Windows shells -- _precisely_ the job for which > > cmdproxy was invented. Doing this on any other level would need > > introduction of too much knowledge of the shell semantics into places > > which don't want to know about that. By contrast, cmdproxy already > > knows about shell semantics, and is meant to deal with that. > > > I doubt it is the correct place. The semantics of the shell is not > sufficient as far as I can see to know enough about the program > arguments. You also need to know the semantics used by the program in > interpreting the arguments. If you do something like this > > C:\> myprog "some/path/perhaps" > > how could cmdproxy know if the slashes should be changed to backslashes?
The case you were talking about originally was with the DIR command. That command is a CMD built-in, so cmdproxy can know everything about it. > On the other hand Emacs has this knowledge since you user wanted file > completion with TAB. It would be very complicated to try to give this > information to cmdproxy IMO. Again, this is a totally different issue, it has nothing at all to do with completion! I could type the full command "dir foo/bar", and it would still fail, even though completion is not involved. _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
