On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:50:13PM +0200, bastian-muttu...@t6l.de wrote:
> On 07Apr16 19:53 +0200, Andreas wrote:
> > Am 07.04.2016 um 01:19 schrieb Cameron Simpson:
> > > Usually when I reach for notmuch it is because I have mismanaged my
> > > folders. Hmm, that message about blah isn't there -
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:21:24PM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> For several years starting in '83 the group I worked with authored
> some of the AT&T courses on shell programming. This was one defect
> that we reported in the Bourne shell, but not the Korn shell courses.
So when is the first meeti
On 07Apr2016 22:27, derek martin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:23:18PM -0700, David Champion wrote:
Speaking of which, it's taken me until the last year to use $(command)
consistently instead of `command`, and I'm not sure anymore why I was
a stickler. I assume some older shell didn't supp
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 08:51:52AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 07Apr2016 10:37, derek martin wrote:
> >I've yet to notice any of the so-called benefits of getting older,
> >that people sometimes extoll...
>
> My father once asserted that it was better than the alternative.
Fair point! On
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 07:52:00PM -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:38:43 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > For historic reasons, "$@" evaluates to a single "" if there were no
> > arguments
> > at all, introducing a spurious new empty argument. Possibly the thinking
> > wa
* Cameron Simpson [04-07-16 18:59]:
> On 07Apr2016 19:53, Andreas wrote:
> >Am 07.04.2016 um 01:19 schrieb Cameron Simpson:
> >>Usually when I reach for notmuch it is because I have mismanaged my
> >>folders. Hmm, that message about blah isn't there - where is it?
> >
> >Me too and while it does
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:50:13PM +0200, bastian-muttu...@t6l.de wrote:
> On 07Apr16 19:53 +0200, Andreas wrote:
> > Am 07.04.2016 um 01:19 schrieb Cameron Simpson:
> ...
> By now I cannot imagine any solution which is more flexible (for me).
> Comments welcome!
I do basically the same, with some
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:10:13PM -0400, Fred Smith wrote:
>
> well, to answer the OP, I've never before heard of notmuch, so I've
> never missed it!
At least notmuch
w
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 08:56:33AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 07Apr2016 19:53, Andreas wrote:
> >Am 07.04.2016 um 01:19 schrieb Cameron Simpson:
> >>Usually when I reach for notmuch it is because I have mismanaged my
> >>folders. Hmm, that message about blah isn't there - where is it?
> >
What fun!
* On 07 Apr 2016, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
> Ah. I like zsh for my interactive shell. But we always leave root's shell
> alone. However, I am a _very_ strong advocate for writing scripts for
> /bin/sh, and avoiding bashisms for exactly your reasons above. Am I alone in
> wincing everyt
On 07Apr2016 10:37, derek martin wrote:
I've yet to notice any of the so-called benefits of getting older,
that people sometimes extoll...
My father once asserted that it was better than the alternative.
Probably fixed in modern interactive shells. Note your test is
testing your interactive
On 07Apr2016 19:53, Andreas wrote:
Am 07.04.2016 um 01:19 schrieb Cameron Simpson:
Usually when I reach for notmuch it is because I have mismanaged my
folders. Hmm, that message about blah isn't there - where is it?
Me too and while it does find the message it does not tell me /where/ it
is.
On 07Apr16 19:53 +0200, Andreas wrote:
> Am 07.04.2016 um 01:19 schrieb Cameron Simpson:
> > Usually when I reach for notmuch it is because I have mismanaged my
> > folders. Hmm, that message about blah isn't there - where is it?
Here, just a quick glimpse into my experience.
I discovered an easy
* On 07 Apr 2016, Christian Brabandt wrote:
>
> According to Sven Maschecks website
> http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/bourne_args/
>
> ,
> | These shells behave the old way and need ${1+"$@"}:
> |
> | Certainly: /bin/sh on 7th edition (aka Version 7). And thus also /bin/sh on
> ori
On Mi, 06 Apr 2016, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:38:43 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > For historic reasons, "$@" evaluates to a single "" if there were no
> > arguments at all, introducing a spurious new empty argument.
> > Possibly the thinking was that something like "$@" s
* On 06 Apr 2016, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 06Apr2016 19:52, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:38:43 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > > For historic reasons, "$@" evaluates to a single "" if there were no
> > > arguments
> > > at all, introducing a spurious new empty argument.
Am 07.04.2016 um 01:19 schrieb Cameron Simpson:
[...]
Hi all
> Usually when I reach for notmuch it is because I have mismanaged my
> folders. Hmm, that message about blah isn't there - where is it?
Me too and while it does find the message it does not tell me /where/ it
is. How do you do this?
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:49:05AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 06Apr2016 19:33, derek martin wrote:
> >Then again, maybe I did know that once--my
> >memory chips have become increasingly faulty with age. ;-)
>
> Me too. I am further hampered by little "calendar" time sense; other
> people
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:55:10 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> Probably fixed in modern shells. How long have you been shell scripting? (I
> also consider it a bug; the incantation is a workaround.)
I first landed in *nix land with Fedora Core 5 (2005 or 2006, I forget
which), was doing shell n
19 matches
Mail list logo