On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 7:53 AM dana <d...@dana.is> wrote: > > On 20 Oct 2018, at 00:26, Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Which way should we go? I'm leaning towards the second one... > > Not sure how much my opinion is worth, but the second option does feel more > friendly (from a usage perspective) as well as more straight-forward (from a > re-implementation perspective).
Yeah. And not having to describe all the corner cases is a plus. Too many corner cases are a sign of bad implementation anyway. I'll wait some more time for the others to speak up before I cook a proper patch. > There's a third option too, though, right? The 'rsync' behaviour mentioned > earlier? It wouldn't matter either way in any of the examples i listed, but is > there ever a conceivable use case for something like `foo**bar`, where the > `**` > matches across slashes? (I can't think of any reason i'd need that personally, > but then again i don't understand why these people are using `**` the way they > are in the first place.) foo**bar would match foobar as well as foo/bar, foo/x/bar and foo/x/y/bar... Its behavior is error prone in my opinion. There's also some concerns in early iterations of this "**" support that we would need to revisit if we want 'rsync' behavior. I'm not very excited about doing that. -- Duy
