From: Dr. Adam Nielsen Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 21:43:45 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] make slash-rules more readable Message-ID: <469c37d9-4491-9072-211f-d9d8614413e0@in-ici.net> In-Reply-To: <094f3746-67c9-0284-0593-eb6b24d5c4a3@in-ici.net> > Another thing that I noticed is that its not mentioned anywhere that the > pattern use a slash as a directory separator (instead of a backslash), > its only clear from the examples. Maybe its worth to mention it in the > "PATTERN FORMAT" section. Also its maybe worth to introduce the term > "leading slash" and "trailing slash" because they will be of importance > of the following paragraphs. Something like this after the paragraph of > "!": > >     [...] for example, "\!important!.txt". > >     A slash `/` is used as a directory separator. >     A leading slash (that is if the pattern begins with a slash) >     or a trailing slash (that is if the pattern ends with a slash) >     have special meaning and are explained below. > >     If the pattern contains a trailing slash, it would only find >     a match with a directory. [...] > I changed my mind about this last addition. I think it is not very readable and there is no need to explain leading/trailing slash. Maybe one could just note it like this: [...] for example, "\!important!.txt". A slash `/` is used as a directory separator. A leading and trailing slash have special meaning and are explained in the following. If the pattern ends with a slash, it would only find a match with a directory. [...] then I would also add: If the pattern does not end with a slash, it would find a match with a file or directory. Two notes about two sentences that I proposed a while ago: > + - If the pattern contains no slash "`/`" (except an optional trailing slash), > + the ... I think that this sentence is not very readable. The exceptional case in the brackets makes it over complicated. > + - A pattern that contains a non-trailing slash is matched And I don't like this phrase either. I think its too easy to confuse it with "A pattern that contains no trailing slash". So I would suggest to replace both with the following: If the pattern contains no slash or only a trailing slash, [...]. Otherwise (when it contains a non-trailing slash) the pattern is matched [...]. All the best, Adam