On 8/22/18 3:19 PM, Michal Pesa wrote:
> My bad, sorry for not searching properly before asking. Thank you for your
> time.
No problem, you should always report against the latest version you have.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars
On 8/22/18 3:57 AM, Michal Pesa wrote:
> Hello, I have encountered a strange behavior of nested extended globs:
>
> $ echo *
> .txt 000.txt 00.txt 0.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
> $ echo !(0.txt)
> .txt 000.txt 00.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
> $ echo !(+(0).txt)
> . .. a.txt b.txt c.txt
>
> The last
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 03:54:44PM +0300, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> [...] and Bash already supports handling
> subsecond times in at least 'read -t', so it's not that far fetched to
> implement it in 'sleep' too.
Ah, excellent point! OK, that plus the ksh compatibility definitely wins
me over.
On 22.8. 15:22, Greg Wooledge wrote:
Just for the record, the POSIX sleep command only accepts an "integral
number of seconds specified by the time operand." Sub-second sleep(1)
is a GNUism.
Or ksh-ism? (Or does it even matter which one it is originally, since
Bash is GNU Bash with features
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 09:57:19AM +0200, Michal Pesa wrote:
> Hello, I have encountered a strange behavior of nested extended globs:
>
> $ echo *
> .txt 000.txt 00.txt 0.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
> $ echo !(0.txt)
> .txt 000.txt 00.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
> $ echo !(+(0).txt)
> . .. a.txt
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 06:11:14PM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> sleep .001 (ms sleep)...not practical if loaded each time)
> I often use sleep .1/.3/.5 ... if the builtin doesn't support sleep times
> < 1 second, then it's probably not worth it.
>
> Also, needs to actually sleep for the listed time.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:32 PM, don fong wrote:
> wouldn't it be less confusing if the proposed built-in sleep function were
> given a new name instead of overloading "sleep"?
That will complicate the migration effort for people who want to
switch to using the built-in sleep, no?
--
Best
Hello, I have encountered a strange behavior of nested extended globs:
$ echo *
.txt 000.txt 00.txt 0.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(0.txt)
.txt 000.txt 00.txt a.txt b.txt c.txt
$ echo !(+(0).txt)
. .. a.txt b.txt c.txt
The last example correctly excludes the files but why are "." ".."
