Hi, On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 11:02 PM Timmy Almroth <timmy.almr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi @Dan, hi @Sara. Thanks for giving us your feedback on this. > > > I think that although the RFC discussion can go ahead without a patch, > > it would be better to have a patch before it went to vote, as there > > seem to be quite a few hidden details that might not be able to be > > made to work. > > I wanted that too. But it's hard to find someone willing to invest the time > and effort. And it's even harder when that time invested is not guaranteed > to lead to something. Therefore a PoC patch was produced that should give a > good understanding of what is intended. It was not my choice but I > understood the reasons. > > I had a quick look to that PoC and it's basically just a quick wrapper that depends on GLOB_ALTDIRFUNC. Unfortunately that's a non standard extension that might be missing on some platform (e.g. alpine won't probably work because from a quick look the musl libc doesn't seeem to implement it - https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/include/glob.h ). The code obviously needs more work and we will need bunch of tests for this. Well obviously it's just a PoC but what I want to say is that implementation is really main thing here and should also help to provide more details in RFC. For example it's not currently clear that you would change underlaying glob implementation on some platforms - quite important thing to mention though. To be honest if there is a good implementation, I think it's quite unlikely that the RFC will fail. Regards Jakub
