Assuming we do that, what interface do you think would be simpler? We still need easy access to both a StringRef and a c_str(), since StringRef::data is not guaranteed to be null terminated, so the entry thing is still nice. On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 5:44 AM Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote:
> The quote char is only exposed as a means to not break existing code which > depends on it (most of which, not surprisingly, is in the Args class itself. > > We could try to come up with a way to kill it, but that seems like a > separate refactor (and perhaps quite difficult since different platforms > have different rules) > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 5:23 AM Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > > labath added a comment. > > I don't know how deep do you want this refactor to be, but there is one > issue I would like us to consider, if only to decide it is out of scope of > this change. I am talking about the `quote_char` thingy. The main problem > for me is that I don't think it's possible to sanely define the meaning of > that field. According to POSIX quoting rules (which our command line > more-or-less follows) a single argument can be quoted in a great many ways, > using various combinations of quote characters. For example, these are all > valid ways to represent the argument `asdf` in a POSIX shell: > > asdf > "asdf" > 'asdf' > a"sd"f > "as"df > "as""df" > "as"'df' > "a"s'd'"f" > ... (you get my point) > > I don't think there is a self-consistent way to define what the > `quote_char` field will be for each of these options. Moreover, I don't see > why one would ever need to use that field. It can only encourage someone to > try to "quote" the argument by doing `quote_char+value+quote_char`, which > is absolutely wrong if you ever want that result to be machine parsable.(*) > For proper quoting I think we should just have a free-standing `std::string > quote_for_posix_shell(llvm::StringRef)` function (and maybe > `quote_for_windows_cmd`, and whatever else quoting scheme we need), and > then the user can decide which one to use based on who is going to be > consuming it. Then we can just kill the `quote` field. The only thing is... > I have no idea how much work that will be (but I am ready to chip in to > make it happen). > > So, yea, if we decide not to do that, then I think the interface looks > great. Otherwise, I think we can design a slightly simpler (and more > consistent) one. > > (*) Bonus question: Try to start an executable under lldb, so that in > enters `main()` with `argc=2` and `argv[1]="'"` I.e., as if it had been > started this way via bash: > > $ /bin/cat \' > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D26883 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
