Re: zmv -W/-w in subdirs, possibly patch

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:29:50 +0200
Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My question is: Why was the / there in the first place? Would the
> above patch break any existing usecases?
> (in case it is hard to spot, the patch removes the only / on the
> line). If it does break some weird complex
> pattern, maybe I would argue that you should not use -w then.

I've a suspicion this was supposed to catch **/.  This might even work.

Index: Functions/Misc/zmv
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/zsh/zsh/Functions/Misc/zmv,v
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -r1.14 zmv
--- Functions/Misc/zmv	11 May 2008 11:23:31 -0000	1.14
+++ Functions/Misc/zmv	6 Sep 2009 18:44:18 -0000
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@
   # Well, this seems to work.
   # The tricky bit is getting all forms of [...] correct, but as long
   # as we require inactive bits to be backslashed its not so bad.
-  find='(#m)((\*\*#/|[*?]|<[0-9]#-[0-9]#>|\[(^|)(\]|)(\[:[a-z]##:\]|\\?|[^\]])##\])\##|?\###)'
+  find='(#m)((\*\*##/|[*?]|<[0-9]#-[0-9]#>|\[(^|)(\]|)(\[:[a-z]##:\]|\\?|[^\]])##\])\##|?\###)'
   tmp="${pat//${~find}/$[++cnt]}"
   if [[ $cnt = 0 ]]; then
     print -r -- "$myname: warning: no wildcards were found in search pattern" >&2


-- 
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web page now at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.w.stephenson/