[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#12689: 24.2; Eshell ${cmd} substitution
From: |
Jim Porter |
Subject: |
bug#12689: 24.2; Eshell ${cmd} substitution |
Date: |
Mon, 2 May 2022 20:52:03 -0700 |
On 2/9/2022 12:12 PM, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
OK; I'm reopening this bug report, then.
I filed bug#55236 to fix some wider issues I encountered with Eshell
expansions, which may also fix this bug. I think it depends on what
exactly we want for the behavior here. With my patches in that bug, this
is the behavior I get:
Default:
~ $ echo ${/bin/echo -e "foo\nbar"}
("foo" "bar")
~ $ echo ${/bin/echo -e "foo\nbar"}-baz
("foo" "bar-baz")
~ $ /bin/echo ${/bin/echo -e "foo\nbar"}
foo bar
~ $ /bin/echo ${/bin/echo -e "foo\nbar"}-baz
foo bar-baz
With `eshell-plain-echo-behavior' == t:
~ $ echo ${*echo -e "foo\nbar"}
foo bar
~ $ echo ${*echo -e "foo\nbar"}-baz
foo bar-baz
~ $ /bin/echo ${/bin/echo -e "foo\nbar"}
foo bar
~ $ /bin/echo ${/bin/echo -e "foo\nbar"}-baz
foo bar-baz
I think the "plain" echo behavior is what the original report expected,
so maybe we can consider this fixed then. However, maybe we should
consider whether the default, non-"plain" behavior should be changed. I
don't have a strong opinion here, although I'm hesitant to make any big
changes to the default behavior of Eshell's echo builtin, since I feel
like it could break a lot of things really easily...
- bug#12689: 24.2; Eshell ${cmd} substitution,
Jim Porter <=