Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <> writes:

>> I am guessing that the only sensible definition is that "**"
>> requires anything that comes before it (if exists) is at a proper
>> hierarchy boundary, and anything matches it is also at a proper
>> hierarchy boundary, so "x**y" matches "x/a/y"
> and "x/y" too? (As opposed to "x/**/y" which does not)

Yeah, x**y would match x/y under that "sensible" semantics.

>> and not "xy", "xay",
>> nor "xa/by" in the above example.  If "x**y" can match "xy" or "xay"
>> (or "**foo" can match "afoo"), it would be unreasonable to say it
>> implies the pattern is anchored at any level, no?
> Yeah. That makes things easier to reason, though not exactly what we're 
> having.

It sounds like that "x**y" with the code you imported would match
"xy" and "xa/b/cy", and I do not think of a concise and good way to
describe what it does to the end users.

"matches anything including '/'" is not a useful description for the
purpose of allowing the user to intuitively understand why "x**y" is
anchored at the level (or is not anchored and can appear anywhere).

Perhaps the wildmatch code may not be what we want X-<.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to