Hi Chet, I have no idea if there is "enough" demand, but i think there will be some ideas to use this feature... I still think it is a question of consistency to be able to handle a "No such file or directory event", if i can do this with a "command not found event" (independent of the command_not_found_handle history).
You say you can easily test whether or not if the file in the pathname exists. And Ken's recommendation to trigger a no_such_file_or_directory_handle() is minimally invasive. So why not ? Andreas * * * * ** 2013/8/18 Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> > On 8/14/13 7:44 AM, Andreas Gregor Frank wrote: > > Hi, > > > > i think a file_not_found_handle() or a modified > command_not_found_handle(), > > that does not need an unsuccessful PATH search to be triggered, would be > > useful and consistent. > > The original rationale for command_not_found_handle is that there was no > other way to determine whether a command could be found with a PATH search. > (well, no easy way). > > A PATH search is suppressed when the command to be executed contains a > slash: the presence of a slash indicates an absolute pathname that is > directly passed to exec(). Since there's no search done, you know exactly > which pathname you're attempting to execute, and you can easily test > whether or not it exists and is executable. > > Is there enough demand to make this feature addition worthwhile? > > Chet > > -- > ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer > ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates > Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu > http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/ >
