Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: > I was just looking for a reference where I didn't have to sift through tons > of documentation. Sure :) That’s why I suggest using dash for quick tests and rely on the work of other people who did read the POSIX spec. I’ll have to check it too before committing a patch.
> shlex uses a series of character strings to drive it's parsing: whitespace, > escape, quotes. > Add another one: control = '();<>|&'. If it is unset (by default?), then the > behavior is as > before. So we would need to add a Shlex subclass to the module to provide the new behavior. I think I prefer a new argument, because we can just extend the existing class and functions instead of adding subtly differing duplicates. > If it is set, then shlex will output any character in control as a separate > token. Unless it is part of a quoted segment, right? (See #7611 for 'foo#bar' vs. 'foo #bar'). > There might be a shell specific script (or maybe it's left to the user) > that decides that certain tokens can be recombined: Seems to much complexity. I really prefer if we agree on one command parsing behavior (POSIX, i.e. dash) and improve shlex to support that. People wanting zsh rules can write their own subclass. > '&&', '||', '|&', '>>', etc. Wouldn’t it be more correct to consider them different tokens? I don’t have a format training in CS or programming, so I’m not sure that my definition is correct at all, but in my mind a token is a unit, and thus & and && are two different things. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1521950> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
