On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:37:02AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote:
Then maybe an option should be added to 'local' to display the full
description that one can get from the manual, or maybe change the
behaviour of '-m' switch ?
Almost every builtin command has a shorter and less informative
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Greg Wooledge wool...@eeg.ccf.org wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:37:02AM +0100, Francis Moreau wrote:
Then maybe an option should be added to 'local' to display the full
description that one can get from the manual, or maybe change the
behaviour of '-m'
On 12/14/12 2:37 AM, Francis Moreau wrote:
`help' is a quick reference -- a handy shortcut. The authoritative
documentation is still the manual page and texinfo document.
Then maybe an option should be added to 'local' to display the full
description that one can get from the manual, or
On 12/14/12 8:21 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
I do sympathize with the difficulty of finding the relevant information
in the manual sometimes, though, especially for builtins that are common
words like 'set'.
That's where the superior indexing and structure of the info file format
demonstrate
Hello list,
One of our bash-scrips failed with very low frequency but randomly. The result
was that exactly 1 byte was lost, so the string returned by read -t 1 was too
short. The culprit seems to be the built-in read function itself, the
probability of failure was about 1:10 in our case.
I think the ksh behavior is makes more sense so can we use the current time
as the default?
-Clark
I agree that a null or empty argument as equivalent to -1 is a better
default.
0 is identical to the current behavior for empty/unset, so no functionality
is lost.
That's not
On Friday, December 14, 2012 08:37:02 AM Francis Moreau wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Chet Ramey chet.ra...@case.edu wrote:
On 12/13/12 3:56 AM, Francis Moreau wrote:
I see thanks.
Somehow I thought that help(1) would have given nothing more nothing
less than what was
On Friday, December 14, 2012 09:57:11 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
I think the ksh behavior is makes more sense so can we use the current
time
as the default?
-Clark
I agree that a null or empty argument as equivalent to -1 is a better
default.
0 is identical to the current
I'm not trying to start a war, but ...
Has anyone entertained the idea of getting rid of the man pages and the
info system? Those are relics of the tty era. We have graphical interfaces
today with capabilities that could enhance providing and then finding
better information.
Wouldn't a browser
On 12/14/2012 12:07 PM, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
I'm not trying to start a war, but ...
Has anyone entertained the idea of getting rid of the man pages and the
info system? Those are relics of the tty era. We have graphical interfaces
today with capabilities that could enhance providing and then
On 12/14/2012 06:07 PM, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
I'm not trying to start a war, but ...
Has anyone entertained the idea of getting rid of the man pages and the
info system? Those are relics of the tty era.
Don't make the error of confusing the texinfo system with just the
info format. I, for
On 12/14/2012 06:58 PM, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
My point was to DESIGN for html and the rich environment it offers, not to
try to convert a Model T into a Mercedes.
I'm not wild about a wiki either, if its a free for all. If on the other
hand, it is a submission platform that gets reviewed and
On 12/14/12 12:03 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
On Friday, December 14, 2012 09:57:11 AM Chet Ramey wrote:
I think the ksh behavior is makes more sense so can we use the current time
as the default?
-Clark
I agree that a null or empty argument as equivalent to -1 is a better
default.
0 is
i wanted to move a bunch of files directories, all except a certain
few, so i figured i'd use !(this|or|that). so first i looked to see
if +(this|or|that) isolated what i expected...
you would want /@(??) or simply /??, since there's no need for extglob for
that.
well what i actually
I recently worked on a project involving many bash scripts, and I've been
trying to use errexit to stop various parts of a script as soon as anything
returns a non-0 return code. As it turns out, this is an utterly useless
endeavour. In asking this question on this forum, I hope somebody out
On 12/14/2012 04:07 PM, matei.da...@gmail.com wrote:
I recently worked on a project involving many bash scripts, and I've been
trying to use errexit to stop various parts of a script as soon as anything
returns a non-0 return code. As it turns out, this is an utterly useless
endeavour. In
On 12/14/2012 11:29 PM, gregrwm wrote:
well what i actually wanted was to conjure an expression that selected
a small few files, and then invert the expression, in particular i
wanted to isolate all 2 letter names plus a few other names, and then
invert, so that the aforementioned were not in
echo !(??|foo|bar)
precisely where i started this thread, !(??)
On 12/15/2012 02:37 AM, gregrwm wrote:
echo !(??|foo|bar)
precisely where i started this thread, !(??)
Not sure if I understand you correctly because you indeed mentioned the
!(foo|bar|baz) syntax in your first post -- but the thread was actually
about +(??) ...
That is, are you
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:37 PM, gregrwm backuppc-us...@whitleymott.netwrote:
echo !(??|foo|bar)
precisely where i started this thread, !(??)
+(??) and !(??) are completely different things. !(??) was never mentioned
in the original question, and should work as expected.
20 matches
Mail list logo
