Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Consider removing '?' wildcard #4520
Using fish 2.4.0 as packaged by Debian Stretch, I noticed that
It looks like fish tries to interpret the interrogation mark, whereas it's a legitimate switch of
Such a bug seems beyond my development knowledge, so I opened this issue.
FWIW, fish executes in a tmux session, though I don't think it matters. If you need more data, feel free to ask it.
Unfortunately, it's not a bug. The
You'll need to quote it if you wish to use it -
Note that it's a wildcard character in bash as well, but bash's default behavior is to pass the literal glob if no file matches. E.g. try this in bash, then
See #3649, where we've discussed dropping this wildcard. We came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it for fish 2.X, but we've since started preparing an incompatible 3.0, so we might want to reconsider.
+0.5, I also never want ? as wildcard and frequently want it literal.
Only 3 wildcard uses in about 5 commands from 355:
=> I must admit this is not the overwhelming evidence I expected :) It does confirm I don't need
P.S. For the quoting use cases, I feel what I really want is not syntax but interactive convenience.
Given the files foo1, ..., foo9, foo10, ..., foo278, the commands
will turn them into foo001, ..., foo009, foo010, ..., foo278.
@Dtxdt2 per the Linux
Also please keep in mind that fish isn’t Linux-only, and people have been using native ZFS with fish for years under generous, permissive licenses like the BSD.
Unfortunately that's not correct. The man page is simply assuming that your shell will do that.
Though note that there's a number of
The question here is if