On November 10, 2014 10:09:26 PM EAT, ds26gte <[email protected]> wrote: >On Monday, November 10, 2014 1:50:54 PM UTC-5, Christian Brabandt >wrote: >> On Mo, 10 Nov 2014, ds26gte wrote: >> >> > The path pattern ** seems to require at least one explicit >directory in the directory subpath that it matches. E.g., let's say we >have >> > >> > au bufread,bufnewfile ~/**/*.ex let b:starstar_check = 1 >> > >> > Now, editing a file ~/tmp/a.ex will, as expected, set its >b:starstar_check to be set. >> > >> > However, editing a file ~/b.ex does not set b:starstar_check. >> > >> > Is this expected behavior, and if so, what is the preferred way to >capture all the files (recursively) in a directory? >> >> I would say, it is expected behaviour, because the '/' in your >pattern >> forces a match of a directory. > >This doesn't match shell behavior of ** (for shells that have it, like >bash). > >Even if ~/**/*.ex is deemed to keep the '/', the empty instantiation of >the ** pattern would give ~//*.ex, which is equivalent to ~/*.ex, as >consecutive /'s in a path collapse into a single /, even in Vim.
There is no special directory "" equivalent to special directory ".". Shells simply search for *.ex starting from the current directory and deeper. The outcome is equivalent, but no "empty instantiation". Just "**" means the recursive search from the given directory. > >Regards, >--dorai -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
