1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
|
.. _tutorial_subproc_strings:
************************************
Tutorial: Subprocess Strings
************************************
Strings in xonsh follow two simple rules:
1. Strings in xonsh are always parsed in the same way, and
2. Python always wins!
Together these rules mean that **even strings in subprocess mode are treated
like Python strings!** This will (help) preserve your sanity.
No Escape
=========
Xonsh strings are exactly like Python strings everywhere. Xonsh uses
exactly the same escape characters that Python does; no more and no less.
This is different from other shells, which have a different set of escape
sequences than Python has. Notably, many sh-langs allow you to escape
spaces with ``"\ "`` (backslash-space).
**bash**
.. code-block:: bash
$ echo A\ Single\ Argument
A Single Argument
In the above example, since the spaces are escaped, the ``echo`` command
only receves a single argument. Xonsh does not allow this. If you were
to try this in xonsh, you'd see:
**xonsh**
.. code-block:: bash
$ echo Actually\ Three\ Arguments
Actually\ Three\ Arguments
In this example, echo recives three arguments:: ``"Actually\\"``, ``"Three\\"``,
and ``"Arguments"``. Instead, xonsh requires you to use quotes in order to
pass in a single argument:
**xonsh** or **bash**
.. code-block:: bash
$ echo "A Single Argument"
A Single Argument
Using quotes is arguably what should have been done in sh-lang in the
first place.
.. note::
When in doubt in subprocess mode, use quotes!
Justification
=============
The reasons for not having additional escape sequences, as in sh-langs, are:
1. Escape charaters can get overwhemlingly ugly, fast.
2. We have escape characters, they are called quotes :)
3. We have literal input in subprocess mode via macros.
On this last point, if you don't already know about
`Subprocess Macros <tutorial_macros.html#subprocess-macros>`_,
these allow all input following an ``!`` to be treated as a single argument.
For example,
**xonsh**
.. code-block:: bash
$ echo! A Single Argument
A Single Argument
Subprocess macros are the ultimate escape mechanism.
The Quotes Stay
===============
In sh-langs, internal quote characters are removed. For instance:
.. code-block:: bash
$ echo foo"bar"baz
foobarbaz
$ echo --key="value"
--key=value
Xonsh considers this behavior suboptimal. Instead, xonsh treats these
arguments as if they were surrounded in another, outer level of
quotation (``'foo"bar"baz'``). Xonsh will keep the quotation marks
when leading and trailing quotes are not matched.
**xonsh**
.. code-block:: bash
$ echo foo"bar"baz
foo"bar"baz
$ echo --key="value"
--key="value"
You can think of these being equivalent to,
**xonsh**
.. code-block:: bash
$ echo 'foo"bar"baz'
foo"bar"baz
$ echo '--key="value"'
--key="value"
This is yet another major point of departure for xonsh from traditional
shells. However, the xonsh subprocess string handling is
consistent and predictable.
Further Reading
===============
For deeper details on the great string debate, please feel free to read
and comment at:
* `To Quote or Not Quote <https://github.com/xonsh/xonsh/issues/1432>`_
* `Quote removal in subprocess mode does not behave as expected <https://github.com/xonsh/xonsh/issues/621>`_
|
