On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 9:21 PM, patrick keshishian
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:15:17PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote:
>>> I wonder if included patch is a correct fix for the following
>>> "glitch" I'm seeing with ksh in `set
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:11:14PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 9:21 PM, patrick keshishian
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:15:17PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote:
> >> I wonder if included patch is a correct fix for the following
> >> "glitch" I'm seeing with k
Hi Philip,
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 09:11:14PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 9:21 PM, patrick keshishian
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:15:17PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote:
> >> I wonder if included patch is a correct fix for the following
> >> "glitch" I'm s
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 9:21 PM, patrick keshishian
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:15:17PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote:
>>> I wonder if included patch is a correct fix for the following
>>> "glitch" I'm seeing with ksh in `set
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 9:21 PM, patrick keshishian
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:15:17PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote:
>> I wonder if included patch is a correct fix for the following
>> "glitch" I'm seeing with ksh in `set -o vi' mode:
>>
>> Demonstration of "glitch":
>> $ touch a
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 09:15:17PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote:
> I wonder if included patch is a correct fix for the following
> "glitch" I'm seeing with ksh in `set -o vi' mode:
>
> Demonstration of "glitch":
> $ touch a.c a.h
> $ ls a.
> ls: a.: No such file or directory
>
I wonder if included patch is a correct fix for the following
"glitch" I'm seeing with ksh in `set -o vi' mode:
Demonstration of "glitch":
$ touch a.c a.h
$ ls a.
ls: a.: No such file or directory
$
a.c a.h
$
With patch:
$ ls a.