Almost expansion globbing

[rupert-t-strahovsky]

**
Fish version 3.3.1
Linux pop-os 6.6.6
Kitty terminal

So an interesting little problem here, it may, or may not, in fact be a bug, but it feels buggy and perhaps someone can put me on the right track either way:

Just attempting to glob ls with *, just playing around, getting a feel for fish, I notice this: If the directory has a single file ending with an "e" it is not picked up by "ls *e". Add a second file ending in "e", no problem.
For example:

touch charlie
ls *e
{Nothing}

touch charlee
ls *e
charlie
charlee
{As expected}

rm charlee
ls *e
{Again, nothing}

Now I have played around with a few letters, touch aa, ab, ac... etc, just seeing what happens, and assumed I am just globbing wrong. I probably am! But, I would love to know what is special about "e". I didn't go through the alphabet, and searched for other instances of people talking about this, but didn't find anything.
Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. :)

~rts
**

[mqudsi]

Can you upgrade your fish installation and try again? I'm not reproducing this on my end, and 3.3.1 is rather old.

[rupert-t-strahovsky]

Upgraded to 3.7.0 Can reproduce it with directories at this point. Just running a small test as follows: mkdir test cd test mkdir ae ls *e {nothing} mkdir be ls *e ae: be: {as expected} cd be touch ae ls *e ae {as expected} rm ae mkdir aa ls *a {nothing, should be aa, shouldn't it?} mkdir ba ls *a aa: ba: {as expected} So, at this point I am feeling there is something about having a single directory and ls or the * not quite playing well with each other. Actually, let me just try something... this happens in bash too. I feel like this is just my lack of understanding of how it ought to work rather than it being a bug. ☺☻☺☻☺ ~rts

…

On Mar 11 2024, at 10:33 am, Mahmoud Al-Qudsi ***@***.***> wrote: Can you upgrade your fish installation and try again? I'm not reproducing this on my end, and 3.3.1 is rather old. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub ***@***.***/0?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ffish-shell%2Ffish-shell%2Fissues%2F10361%23issuecomment-1987411146&recipient=cmVwbHkrQkczQjJHSUlPRFNCQlVSMldHS0hYNldEN0laRDVFVkJOSEhJRFVJWFNVQHJlcGx5LmdpdGh1Yi5jb20%3D), or unsubscribe ***@***.***/1?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FBG3B2GNDTY6DVZT5KZNTCO3YXT3T5AVCNFSM6AAAAABEPLEGNKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOBXGQYTCMJUGY&recipient=cmVwbHkrQkczQjJHSUlPRFNCQlVSMldHS0hYNldEN0laRDVFVkJOSEhJRFVJWFNVQHJlcGx5LmdpdGh1Yi5jb20%3D). You are receiving this because you authored the thread.

[faho]

This is, in fact, just ls behavior.

Try this:

ls aa/

This will print nothing. You're asking ls to show you the contents of the "aa/" directory, which is empty.

If you do

ls aa/ ba/

It will print "aa", and "ba", but more specifically it will print aa/: and ba/:. These are headings. ls tries to show the contents of both directories, and to disambiguate what is in which directory it prints a heading first.

If you want ls to not descend into the directories to show the contents, use ls -d.

[rupert-t-strahovsky]

Indeed! Thank you for the education. Like I said, just my not understanding very well.
We are all on a journey!
Thank you. :)