> It seems like what you want is min(history_lines_this_session,
> history_offset),
> kind of like what you say below. Try the attached patch and see if it
> does what you want.
Yes, that's what I mean.
> I don't think this would happen too much in practice, though, because if
> you wait until y
On 2/28/19 2:32 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> chet.ra...@case.edu also said:
> | Because ksh uses the open, open, close, close interpretation.
>
> Actually just the opposite,
Correct, my bad.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis''
Date:Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:38:07 -0500
From:Grisha Levit
Message-ID:
First, apologies from me for missing this message from you. I don't
know if my spam filters caught it (for some unknown reason) or whether
it was delivered and I simply discarded it without notici
On 2/28/19 10:21 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 2/28/19 7:38 AM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> in Solaris 10 apparently O_CLOEXEC is not defined.
>> (got a bug report in http://gnats.netbsd.org/54025)
>>
>> Attached is a patch wrapping the code using it in #ifdef O_CLOEXEC.
>
> Incomplete -
On 2/25/19 5:38 PM, Grisha Levit wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:22 PM Robert Elz wrote:
>> I think these are actually more the insertion of explicit null
>> strings, rather than $@ when it contains null strings. These
>> are essentially the same as the ${b+s ''} issue that was discussed
>>
On 2/28/19 7:38 AM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> in Solaris 10 apparently O_CLOEXEC is not defined.
> (got a bug report in http://gnats.netbsd.org/54025)
>
> Attached is a patch wrapping the code using it in #ifdef O_CLOEXEC.
Incomplete - if you are unable to atomically set the CLOEXEC f
On 2/24/19 6:37 PM, Grisha Levit wrote:
> There are some what seem to be regressions (?) in bash-4.4 and
> bash-5.0 regarding the handling of "$@" expansion when it consists
> entirely of null strings.
Thanks for the report and additional tests.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to l
On 2/28/19 8:38 AM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> in Solaris 10 apparently O_CLOEXEC is not defined.
> (got a bug report in http://gnats.netbsd.org/54025)
>
> Attached is a patch wrapping the code using it in #ifdef O_CLOEXEC.
Thanks for the report. This was fixed in the devel branch a fe
Hi folks,
in Solaris 10 apparently O_CLOEXEC is not defined.
(got a bug report in http://gnats.netbsd.org/54025)
Attached is a patch wrapping the code using it in #ifdef O_CLOEXEC.
thanks.
>From e9d262e43c6d4ada77f1b722f352fb55a4107ec0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Maya Rashish
Date: Thu, 28 F
