[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: feature request: file_not_found_handle()

From: Andreas Gregor Frank
Subject: Re: feature request: file_not_found_handle()
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:57:56 +0200

Hi Chet,

I have no idea if there is "enough" demand, but i think there will be some
ideas to use this feature...
I still think it is a question of consistency to be able to handle a "No
such file or directory event", if i can do this with a "command not found
event" (independent of the command_not_found_handle history).

You say you can easily test whether or not if the file in the pathname
And Ken's recommendation to trigger a no_such_file_or_directory_handle() is
minimally invasive.

So why not ?



2013/8/18 Chet Ramey <address@hidden>

> On 8/14/13 7:44 AM, Andreas Gregor Frank wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i think a file_not_found_handle() or a modified
> command_not_found_handle(),
> > that does not need an unsuccessful PATH search to be triggered, would be
> > useful and consistent.
> The original rationale for command_not_found_handle is that there was no
> other way to determine whether a command could be found with a PATH search.
> (well, no easy way).
> A PATH search is suppressed when the command to be executed contains a
> slash: the presence of a slash indicates an absolute pathname that is
> directly passed to exec().  Since there's no search done, you know exactly
> which pathname you're attempting to execute, and you can easily test
> whether or not it exists and is executable.
> Is there enough demand to make this feature addition worthwhile?
> Chet
> --
> ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
>                  ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
> Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    address@hidden
> http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]