Re: [PATCH] don't treat alone grouping pattern as glob qualifier

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:42:26 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Nov 18,  8:30am, Han Pingtian wrote:
> } Subject: Re: [PATCH] don't treat alone grouping pattern as glob qualifier
> }
> } On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:40:41AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> } > However, I can't immediately think of any reason why a paren should be
> } > considered part of a "trailing set" when nothing precedes it ...
> } 
> } Yes, because there is nothing before (s*), it wouldn't be treated as
> } qualifiers, I think.
> 
> Anybody else going to chime in on this?  Are there other cases where
> the (s == str) test in the patch could be true but the paren really
> should be treated as introducing a qualifier?

Another relevant factor leading me to suppose this is probably OK is
that we don't apply glob qualifiers unless there are files that match,
and a file can't match the empty string.  So for example (in the Src
directory, with NO_NOMATCH, and before the patch although it doesn't
affect this):

% print signames.c(:t)
signames.c
% print signames(:t)
signames(:t)

So I contend there is no case that worked before the patch that fails
afterwards.

pws