Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I haven't been following the discussion, but is there a reason we need > to penalize the user with a warning rather than helping, for instance > by inferring ":(glob)" in the presence of `/**/` if not otherwise > countermanded by ":(literal)" or whatnot? Two reasons I can think of offhand are - How /**/ is interpreted is not the only thing that is different between the normal mode and the glob magic mode. IIRC, an asterisk * or a question mark ? matches slash in normal mode (it started out as fnmatch() without FNM_PATHNAME). Should we warn about ":(glob)" if somebody asks for "foo*", "*foo", or "foo*bar". If not, why shouldn't? - Thers is no explicit magic that says "there is no magic" to countermand such a DWIM.
