I think that something starts with -check= on the disk is low probability enough that we don't lose much by not escaping it for unix users, while gaining a lot less confusion on windows.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 5:39 PM Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]> wrote: > I think, we need to leave the examples valid for unix-like shells and add > a short section describing differences of shells or giving windows-specific > usage instructions. Some examples are just impossible to make compatible > with all shells (e.g. -checks='*', even though this is not particularly > useful). > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:34 PM Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Seems like we need different instructions for different shells then >> :( >> >> > The problem is that otherwise the -*... can be subject to shell >> >> > expansion if >> >> > it happens to match some files. >> >> >> >> Ah, I kind of wondered if this was a shell issue. Thank you for the >> >> verification! >> >> >> >> Do you think it makes sense to update the option parsing code to strip >> >> the single quotes if they are present? >> > >> > >> > No, I don't think it's the tool's job to handle idiosyncrasies of the >> > various shells. >> > For the docs I see two possibilities: >> > a) have 2 versions, one for cmd.exe, one for *sh. >> > b) the probability that users will actually have file named -something, >> is >> > not that high, we use the non-quoted version >> >> I kind of lean towards (b) with the understanding (which may be >> incorrect) that users of the shell are expected to understand when to >> quote arguments and when not to. That being said, I don't have a >> strong opinion on it. >> >> ~Aaron >> >> > >> > Alex, thoughts? >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> ~Aaron >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:49 PM Aaron Ballman < >> [email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> This patch addresses two issues (I can split the patch if it is >> >> >> desired): >> >> >> >> >> >> 1) The docs have some non-ASCII characters in them that aren't >> really >> >> >> required. >> >> >> 2) The docs suggest setting the checks using single quotes, which >> does >> >> >> not work (at least, on Windows). >> >> >> >> >> >> When you specify checks like -checks='-*,misc-some-check', the >> single >> >> >> quotes are not stripped by the option parser. When converting the >> >> >> flags into globs to pass along to regex, the single quotes remain as >> >> >> part of the regular expression, and do not match appropriately. When >> >> >> the single quotes are left off, the globs are correctly generated. >> >> >> >> >> >> ~Aaron >> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
