On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 06:05:44PM +0200, Simon Edwards wrote:
> fish could then highlight the "> already_existing_bar.txt" in red
dog > already_existing_bar.txt
and when your commandline is all red, then you have a non-existing
command trying to clobber an existing file ;-)
(this is not meant
Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> On 10/19/07, Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:01:35PM +0200, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
>>> 0. Now: Allow ">?" or "?>" and ">!" or "!>" to explicitly mean
>>> noclobber, and encourage people to rewrite scripts.
>> i have been wondering abo
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 03:23:48PM +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> experience tells me that very few people have enough energy to go
> through the huge list of configuration options and enable the ones
> they like.
right, and changing the default does not help me, when i get into a
random shell
On 10/19/07, Martin Bähr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:01:35PM +0200, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
> > 0. Now: Allow ">?" or "?>" and ">!" or "!>" to explicitly mean
> > noclobber, and encourage people to rewrite scripts.
>
> i have been wondering about a syntax for an explicit
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:01:35PM +0200, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
> 0. Now: Allow ">?" or "?>" and ">!" or "!>" to explicitly mean
> noclobber, and encourage people to rewrite scripts.
i have been wondering about a syntax for an explicit noclobber.
>? or ?> look good.
generally though i'd prefer
On Oct 19, 2007, at 4:01 AM, Beni Cherniavsky wrote:
>
> Sadly, the above scripts breakage scenario is bound to occur once now,
> if we change the definition of ">". But in the long term, we will be
> better off after the change.
I'd like to cast my vote for not changing the ">" semantics. The
On 10/19/07, Myrddin Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/18/07, Philip Ganchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The trouble is the 'noclobber' option in the shell that shall not be
> > named. It makes the '>' operator modal, so when people write '>' they
> > expect something different if they ar
On 10/18/07, Philip Ganchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The trouble is the 'noclobber' option in the shell that shall not be
> named. It makes the '>' operator modal, so when people write '>' they
> expect something different if they are used to having the option set
> than if they are not.
Mo
On 10/17/07, Axel Liljencrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> On 10/17/07, Fernando Canizo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > The only thing left is that sometimes one will really want to truncate a
> > file. In bash this is achieved with this syntax (when noclobber is set):
> >
> > echo "not
I'd like to put my vote in for 'noclobber by default'.
That said, I can understand Axel's reticence... > and >> are fundamental
shell features that almost everyone uses frequently. The more you use
something, the more ingrained it becomes, and the harder it is to imagine it
working differently. I
On 10/17/07, Philip Ganchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, it's as if the noclobber option is hardwired to be
> set, and another redirect operator is created for overwriting. I
> think this is better than overwriting by default.
I just wanted to add another vote for "noclobber by de
This mail is a few hours old as this is a forward of a correspondance
that accidentally ended up private. Ignore the slight redundancy! :)
On 10/17/07, Fernando Canizo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> > On 10/10/07, Fernando Canizo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I just did:
If this idea is accepted, I'd like to propose "!>" and "!^" as the
overwriting versions of the IO redirect operators, the exclamation point or
"bang" signifying "overwrite!". From a quick glance at the fish docs, "!"
currently has no special meaning in the shell, so it's available for this
use.
-
On 10/17/07, Fernando Canizo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[when the file exists, you can either]
> a. overwrite the file (current default, and default for others shells too)
> b. append to the file
> c. refuse to write to the file
>
[...] 'c' is what I think should be the
> default for a shell which
Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Fernando Canizo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just did:
>>
>> echo 'some handy function definition' > ~/.config/fish/config.fish
>>
>> Was in a hurry and didn't noticed the '>' instead of '>>', result:
>> config gone!
>
> Ouch. I'm sorry to hear that.
yea
On 10/10/07, Fernando Canizo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just did:
>
> echo 'some handy function definition' > ~/.config/fish/config.fish
>
> Was in a hurry and didn't noticed the '>' instead of '>>', result:
> config gone!
Ouch. I'm sorry to hear that.
>
> 2 questions and 1 possible request:
I just did:
echo 'some handy function definition' > ~/.config/fish/config.fish
Was in a hurry and didn't noticed the '>' instead of '>>', result:
config gone!
2 questions and 1 possible request:
Q1. Is there a way to recover my configuration by perusing the actual
environment? I have several te
17 matches
Mail list logo
