questionable patterns about extglob HOT 10 CLOSED

hm... what about opposite

I'm running all of the Bash tests I was able to find - the table above lists the only patterns that extglob disagrees with bash on. Unfortunately the nuances of bash extglob don't seem to be consistent with regex - unless we can find a real specification, with sufficient detail to determine correct matching behavior, we'll just have to go with our best guess on some of these.

from extglob.

I think I am pretty much agreement with everyone. extglob's behavior seems to be less surprising. Make sure to note the differences in the readme, of course.

from extglob.

Make sure to note the differences in the readme, of course

good call. I might have forgotten to do that thx

from extglob.

moo.cow !(*.*).!(*.*)

I'm agree with Bash to be true, it make sense.

foo.js.js *.!(js)

and

foo.js.js *.!(js)*

I'm agree with Bash and seeing his the point to return true, but I'm curious what Bash says for *.!(js.)?

edit: maybe outer have precedence than inner here

foo *(!(foo))

hm... what about opposite: !(*(foo))?

In most cases I'm agree with extglob lib more than Bash.

from extglob.

The patterns themselves are pretty bizarre and basically contradict themselves. Based on the chart I'd think extglob's behavior is more in line with what users would expect if they actually used these sorts of combinations, and I also think that when the pattern is odd/ambiguous it's better to "fail closed" and lean toward false when in doubt - so extglob still wins.

I suppose I could understand Bash's reasoning on some of these - particularly those with a trailing * (but at that point should a trailing * just trump absolutely anything else specified in the pattern?) - but a few I'm really struggling to understand how a match could be considered correct behavior.

Stellar work here @jonschlinkert

from extglob.

thanks for the feedback @es128!

I also think that when the pattern is odd/ambiguous it's better to "fail closed" and lean toward false when in doubt

yeah that's pretty similar to what I was thinking

from extglob.

Yea, why not? Let's go with that agreement and if there so many users that are surprised in future, things can be done more strict and to stick more to Bash.

extglob's behavior is more in line with what users would expect if they actually used these sorts of combinations

Absolutely.

from extglob.

meaning you agree?

from extglob.

Yep, I don't have problems with most of them.

from extglob.

closing, I think this is resolved

from extglob.