On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 03:19:45PM -0500, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > > Someone suggested treating the rest of the command line as one argument > > if -- is encountered, I'd be happy with that. > > Why require "--"? Looking at the man page: > > new-window [-adk] [-n window-name] [-t target-window] [shell-command] > > ...why is it necessary to terminate the arguments with "--"? That is, > I'm not sure I see a situation in which there is any ambiguity as to > which arguments belong to new-window and which belong to the external > command. If you simply stop processing options at the first > non-option argument, you're all set (and then treat all remaining > arguments as the command). Ideally, you'd preserve the shell's > tokenization of the command line, rather than concatenating everything > into a single string first.
Actually thinking about it I can't remember if there was a big problem. We'd have to pass argv/argc around internally to represent a shell command or an unparsed tmux command; it'd probably be better, but might need quite a few changes. The reason we don't do that now is that %% substitution is much easier when the command is a single string rather than vector. So all commands that take a command or shell-command would have to take the trailing arguments and store them (we have cmd_copy_argv etc so this wouldn't be hard) instead of storing a string. And %% substitution would have to be rewritten to work on an argv. It'd break most existing configs. Advantage is it would finally make everything consistent with bind-key. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lotusphere 2011 Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d _______________________________________________ tmux-users mailing list tmux-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tmux-users
