From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [patch] utils: qs not escaping pipes
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:22:38 +0200
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
>> Could someone more knowledgeable about Windows please take a look at
>> the version for that
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:52:34PM +0200, Felix wrote:
>
> Thanks. The patch is severely broken (you char=? delim which is a string,
> and some other things),
Ugh, serves me right for trying to make last-minute modifications
at night :(
> but I was able to test a modified version
> on Windows. I
From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [patch] utils: qs not escaping pipes
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 23:22:38 +0200
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
>> Could someone more knowledgeable about Windows please take a look at
>> the version for that
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> Could someone more knowledgeable about Windows please take a look at
> the version for that platform? That implementation does not look correct
> at all. It would be great if we could have a correct version for Windows
> as well.
Here'
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 02:53:10PM +0100, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
>
> > Do you have a reference where we can read up on this "caret escaping"?
>
> I think you already provided one:
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc723564.aspx
I
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Peter Bex wrote:
> Do you have a reference where we can read up on this "caret escaping"?
I think you already provided one:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc723564.aspx
> If it's context-dependent it seems like it would be impossible to decide
> gene
Peter Bex scripsit:
> > 2) removed the charater '%'. I don't see a good reason to escape it. Am I
> > wrong?
Percent must be escaped in .BAT and .CMD files because %FOO% is how you
say $FOO.
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.orghttp://ccil.org/~cowan
No man is an island, entire of itself; every ma
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 06:00:17PM +0100, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> While backslash-escaping is equivalent to its corresponding quoting,
> the same is not true for caret-escaping. Depending on the context one
> is more appropriate than the other. AFAICT the "general" rule is to
> use double-quotin
The provided patch is my attempt at improving qs. The new
backward-compatible signature is:
(define (qs str #!optional (platform (build-platform)) (escape-mode #f))
If escape-mode is false (default) qs acts in "quote-mode":
double-quotes for mingw32, single-quotes for other platforms.
> (display
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Peter Bex wrote:
> Why? What does it buy us? The only reason 'qs' is available is to
> safely escape arbitrary strings for the shell.
Suppose you want to implement some kind of command-line completion. In
this case backslash-escaping is a better fit, I think.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:03:34PM +0100, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> While I agree that the proposed patch is the safest approach and
> should be the default behavior, I would retain the backslash-based
> escaping as an option if possible. Backslash-based escaping is quite
> common and should be av
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that qs doesn't escape pipe characters.
It doesn't escape '=' neither. Shell escaping, as strange as it
sounds, is position dependent. Suppose you have a program named 'l=s'
in your PATH. While e.g. you can delete it wit
> Seems to be pretty straightforward BASIC-style quotation: use double
> quotes to quote strings, and repeat any embedded double quotes.
> This looks somehow consistent with your mention of having to wrap a
> complete command string in double quotes in some situations. Could
> you verify this is h
>>
>> I found qs very helpful.
>
> Me too. But if we can't get it to work correctly, it's a danger.
I think that is a bit of an exaggeration.
>> csc does this double-wrapping, as does setup-api (see "$system" - for
>> some unknown reason the god of consistency has made sure these
>> functions
Felix writes:
> One question, though: how can I escape the tick (#\') itself? My
> attempts at the bash prompt using various combinations of ' and \
> don't seem to work. Actually, the more I try, the more I realize that
> the situation with bash isn't much better than it with with Windows
> ...
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 09:13:16PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> There is no correct version for Windows. Using double-quotes is as
> good as one can get. Note that using double quotes for the
> command-part of a qs'd shell command requires wrapping the whole
> command string into yet another pair of doubl
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 09:37:14PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> > *shakes head in disbelief*. If that's really true this should be
> > made _very explicit_ in the manual, so people know what to expect.
> > Perhaps point out the "process" interfaces as an alternative.
> > Maybe deprecate "qs" entirely?
>
> *shakes head in disbelief*. If that's really true this should be
> made _very explicit_ in the manual, so people know what to expect.
> Perhaps point out the "process" interfaces as an alternative.
> Maybe deprecate "qs" entirely?
I found qs very helpful.
>
> Does this "double wrap" requirem
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 09:13:16PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> > Could someone more knowledgeable about Windows please take a look at
> > the version for that platform? That implementation does not look correct
> > at all. It would be great if we could have a correct version for Windows
> > as well.
>
>
> Could someone more knowledgeable about Windows please take a look at
> the version for that platform? That implementation does not look correct
> at all. It would be great if we could have a correct version for Windows
> as well.
There is no correct version for Windows. Using double-quotes
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> Could someone more knowledgeable about Windows please take a look at
> the version for that platform? That implementation does not look correct
> at all. It would be great if we could have a correct version for Windows
> as well.
PS: T
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 03:22:48PM +0100, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that qs doesn't escape pipe characters. I suggest the patch
> below, which not only makes it so that pipes get escaped, but it also
> switches away from the blacklist approach, which invariably doesn't
> work ;-)
Hi,
I noticed that qs doesn't escape pipe characters. I suggest the patch
below, which not only makes it so that pipes get escaped, but it also
switches away from the blacklist approach, which invariably doesn't
work ;-)
Regards, Florian
--
23 matches
Mail list logo
