Greg Wooledge wrote:
They're not intended to work that way. If you want to test f+x+s then
you just make another function:
-fxs() { test -f "$1" && test -x "$1" && test -s "$1"; }
How many different single-ops? over 20? That's 20 factorial
combos. You wanna include that in a script? um...
All of your syntactic proposals have problems. First, curly braces.
These already have their own semantics, and what you are proposing
does not work with those semantics. You proposed:
[[ -{f,x} $file ]]
With standard curly brace semantics (ignoring [['s stupid magic
parser-bending rules for the moment) this expands to:
----
Nope.. can't ignore '[['s special rules. That's why this
can work.
Second, you proposed test -fx.
I did not -- that was PePa's idea which had nothing to do with
my proposal. My initial design avoided that issue specifically for
that reason. I spoke out against using a combined op like -ge
(as you would suggest for a function name) because it conflicts
with existing two character operators.
The rest of your argument against merged primitives like
funcs -ef, -fe... etc. applies to your using function names
with those names as well as PePa's idea.
The only form I proposed is -{X,Y,Z....} and after Chet pointed
out the compat probs with external 'test' binaries, I limited
to only being used with '[[' -- which has its own compat rules --
that being the reason I agreed w/Chet to limit it to use
with '[[' -- right Chet? ;-)
