GNU bug report logs - #29465
25.3; Confusing message for dired-do-shell-command substitution

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: vianchielfaura <at> gmail.com, 29465 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, tino.calancha <at> gmail.com
Subject: bug#29465: 25.3; Confusing message for dired-do-shell-command substitution
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:36:18 +0200

> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 20:20:38 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: 29465 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>
> 
> IF we feel it helps a user to prompt about something,
> and IF we feel there is a possibility that some users
> might not understand the prompt, in spite of our best
> efforts to come up with a good prompt, and IF we feel
> that understanding the prompt is important, THEN the
> doc string should make clear whatever it is that it
> is important that users understand about that prompting.
> 
> It's quite possible for a user not to understand even
> a good prompt.  S?he should be able to get the point
> by doing `C-h f', in that case.

The doc string already attempts to do that:

  `*' and `?' when not surrounded by whitespace nor `\\=`' have no special
  significance for `dired-do-shell-command', and are passed through
  normally to the shell, but you must confirm first.

We could make the intent of the confirmation even more clear, e.g.

  `*' and `?' when not surrounded by whitespace nor `\\=`' have no special
  significance for `dired-do-shell-command', and are passed through
  normally to the shell, but you must confirm first, to avoid
  inadvertently passing a wildcard to a shell command, which would cause
  that command to act on more files than you intended.

Is anything else needed to make this prompt's intent more clear?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.