Dan Christian <robo...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment: Of course, that's how it's used. That's all it can do right now.
I was was splitting and combining commands (using ;, &&, and ||) and then running the resulting (mega) one liners over ssh. It still gets run by a shell, but I was specifying the control flow. 0 It's kind of like a makefile command block. You want to be able to specify if a failure aborts the sequence, or is ignored (&& vs ;). Sometimes there are fallback commands (via ||). Of course, you can also group using (). Once things are split properly, then understanding the shell control characters is straight forward. I my mind, shlex.split() should either be as close to shell syntax as possible, or have a clear explanation of what is different (and why). I ended up doing my own parsing. I'm not actually at that company anymore, so I can't pull up the code. I'll see if I can come up with a reference case and maybe a unittest this weekend (that's really the only time I'll have to dig into it). -Dan On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Éric Araujo <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: > > Thanks for the comments. > >> There are really two cases in one bug. >> The first part is that the shell will split tokens at characters that shlex >> doesn't. The handling >> of &, |, ;, >, and < could be done by adjusting the definition of >> shlex.wordchars. The shell may >> also understands things like: &&, ||, |&, and >&. The exact definition of >> these depends on the >> shell, so maybe it's best to just split them out as separate tokens and let >> the user figure out the >> compound meanings. > Yes. I think that the main use of shlex is really to parse a line into > chunks with a way to embed spaces; it’s intended to parse a program command > line (“prog --blah "value stillthesamevalue" "arg samearg"”), but not > necessarily a full shell line (with & and | and whatnot). When people have a > line containing & and |, then they need a shell to execute it, so they would > not call shlex.split but just pass the full line to os.system or > subprocess.Popen. Do you remember what use cases you had when you opened > this report? > >> The proper handling of quotes/escapes requires some kind of new interface. >> You need to distinguish >> between tokens that were modified by the quote/escape rules and those that >> were not. > I don’t see why I would care about quotes in the result of shlex.split. > > See also #7611. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue1521950> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1521950> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
