Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:30:47 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>, ports@FreeBSD.org, jkh@FreeBSD.org, Edwin Groothuis <mavetju@chello.nl> Subject: Re: Request for comments [Fwd: bin/24695: [patch] pkg_info: prefix search for a package] Message-ID: <3A7FB637.792D33D8@FreeBSD.org> References: <roam@orbitel.bg> <8064.981413776@winston.osd.bsdi.com> <20010206010142.E17885@ringworld.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 02:56:16PM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > > > But do you really mean regexp-style wildcards, or merely shell-globbing > > > wildcards? If it's just shell globbing, that's much easier to do - > > > just an additional fnmatch() call. > > > > Well, I could go both ways. People are generally a lot more familiar > > with shell globbing syntax and tend to understand "*foo*" over > > ".*foo.*" (unless they're regexp weenies like me) but regexps are far > > more powerful and also delight the engineers. Maybe make it an > > option. ;) > > Don't get me wrong, I *love* regexps too :) Just.. maybe shell globbing > shall be a bit more POLA-friendly, don't you think? And then, regexp > globbing activated by a cmdline option.. mmmmmmm! :) > > (and possibly a shell alias which sets that option by default...) Hehe folks, you are probably reading my brain (I pondered something like that, but was away from e-mail) ;). What do you think if I reimplement 'fuzzy' and 'prefix' options from original proposal into `glob' and `regex' options? So regex kidz would be able say "-x .*foo.*", while glob-lovers "-g *foo*". -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A7FB637.792D33D8>