Re: !(.pattern) can match . and .. if dotglob is enabled

2021-06-06 Thread Ilkka Virta
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 1:31 PM Ilkka Virta wrote: > Personally, I'd just want an option to always make . and .. hidden from > globs. Or rather, > to never generate . or .. as a pathname component via globbing. But > without affecting > other behaviour, like dotglob, and without precluding the

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Léa Gris
Le 06/06/2021 à 11:33, Ilkka Virta écrivait : In fact, that generic 'they' is so common and accepted, that you just used it yourself in the part I quoted above. Either you're acting in bad faith, or you're so confused by your gender-neutral delusion that you don't remember that in normal

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Ilkka Virta
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:49 PM Léa Gris wrote: > Either you're acting in bad faith, or you're so confused by your > gender-neutral delusion that you don't remember that in normal people's > grammar, "they" is a plural pronoun. > Argh, no, that's just an example of the fact that I can't read.

[PATCH] Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread G. Branden Robinson
Hi Chet, Here you go, if you're inclined. Minimally invasive and decidedly non-revolutionary in terms on English lexicon. Patch attached. At 2021-06-05T23:29:58-0400, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > doc/oldbash.texi > 178:manual. Brian and Diane would like to thank Chet Ramey for his

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Ilkka Virta
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 5:50 AM Léa Gris wrote: > Le 05/06/2021 à 18:47, John Passaro écrivait : > > I can see a couple reasons why it would be a good thing, and in the con > > column only "I personally don't have time to go through the manual and > make > > these changes". but I'd happily upvote

Re: [PATCH] Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Léa Gris
Le 06/06/2021 à 06:35, G. Branden Robinson écrivait : Here you go, if you're inclined. Minimally invasive and decidedly non-revolutionary in terms on English lexicon. Your careful patch not using custom grammar is admirable. Although I remain alarmed because this is a work to obey a demand

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Alain D D Williams
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Oğuz wrote: > If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not > bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or > "their". Possible, but it detracts from the clarity of the sentence that it is in. > Though I don't

Re: !(.pattern) can match . and .. if dotglob is enabled

2021-06-06 Thread Ilkka Virta
> Can you write a set of rules that encapsulates what you would like to see? > Or can the group? > I think it's a bit weird that !(.foo) can match . and .. when * doesn't. The other means roughly "anything here", and the other means "anything but .foo here", so having the latter match things the

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread John Passaro
Léa, I see that in the section Ilkka quoted you were using it in the plural. However Ilkka is exactly right; despite "they" being technically plural, using it for somebody of undetermined gender has been in the mainstream since long before inclusive language. "Someone left *their* book, there's no

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Oğuz
6 Haziran 2021 Pazar tarihinde Alain D D Williams yazdı: > On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Oğuz wrote: > > > If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not > > bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or > > "their". > > Possible, but it detracts

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Oğuz
6 Haziran 2021 Pazar tarihinde Ilkka Virta yazdı: > > I do wonder, though, what the gender-neutral delusion here would be? That > there exist women > who use computers and Unix-like systems, and not just men? Even I know, in > real life, some > female Linux users, and while I haven't asked about

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Léa Gris
Le 06/06/2021 à 16:34, Oğuz écrivait : Then there is no need to change anything. Exactly. As a woman, I take no offense when a documentation illustrate a fictive male character. (and as I will illustrate below, in French pronouns are tuned in gender and number with the object). I am not

Re: !(.pattern) can match . and .. if dotglob is enabled

2021-06-06 Thread Nora Platiel
In my previous message, I wrote: > Yes, it all depends on the "universal set" from which the matches of the inner > `pattern-list' are subtracted. > But in the current implementation, the inner matches are subtracted from: > - all files, if dotglob is set > - all except dot files, if dotglob is

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Greg Wooledge
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Oğuz wrote: > If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not > bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or > "their". *sigh* I probably shouldn't do this, but let's dive into this just a bit, because apparently

Re: [PATCH] Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Lawrence Velázquez
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021, at 12:35 AM, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2021-06-05T23:29:58-0400, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > doc/oldbash.texi > > 178:manual. Brian and Diane would like to thank Chet Ramey for his > > 9138:# The alternative explanation is that his frequent use of the > >

Re: Prefer non-gender specific pronouns

2021-06-06 Thread Derek Fawcus
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:00:21PM +0300, Ilkka Virta wrote: > On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:49 PM Léa Gris wrote: > > For the second person, there's of course "thou", but for some reason, > I've never heard anyone suggest using that in practice. Hast thou never been to Yorkshire or Lancashire? :-)

Re: !(.pattern) can match . and .. if dotglob is enabled

2021-06-06 Thread Nora Platiel
Hello, > Personally, I'd just want an option to always make . and .. hidden from > globs. [...] If such option existed, I would certainly use it. As I already said, I can't imagine why anyone would ever want a pattern to match `.' or `..' (unless the entire path component is literal). But even