Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 12:04:57AM -0700, David Brown wrote: >> On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:39:31 -0700, Nuno Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >I understand your point. On the other hand there is no way to be fully >> >sure they will always be the same, as "*" is a shell thing and it's up >> >to the shell to return us the same as . would do (for example, I could >> >have a shell that has an option somewhere to never include a >> >*.my_extension file in the * expansion). >> >> Most shells already distinguish these. "*" in the shell doesn't include >> filenames that start with a '.'. > > Yes, but just because there's a subtle technical difference doesn't > mean that people don't expect them to work the same, and won't > make mistakes, experience confusion, etc. if they don't...
I think it's safe to assume your users have a basic knowledge of shell expansion. E.g. the same applies to find . -name * vs. find . -name "*", which people still have to somehow understand. > > Also, the difference here is in the other direction -- "*" would > potentially include lots of things that _aren't_ included by ".". > Which really is a bit surprising, no? No. That's the feature you were talking about. Just document it. Regards, Bruno. _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
