Re: Failglob issues

[Nikolai Kondrashov]

On 09/01/2013 05:52 PM, Chris Down wrote:
> On 2013-09-01 12:45, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> > 1) With both nullglob and failglob enabled it is considered an error for a
> >     glob not to match anything. I'd say it's more natural to not produce an
> >     error in this case. Otherwise a fairly useful behavior is broken, like
> >     glob use in "for" loop:
>
> Well... nullglob *and* failglob are pretty much at odds with each other. I'm
> not sure what you expect to happen.

Ah, right, sorry, I didn't think this through.

Sincerely,
Nick