On 4/10/13 9:56 AM, dnade@orange.com wrote:
> WRT getopts, what improvements can we expect for bash 4.3 (or later) ?
There are no changes in getopts between bash-4.2 and bash-4.3. It behaves
as Posix specifies.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
--
> De : bug-bash-bounces+dnade.ext=orange@gnu.org [mailto:bug-bash-
> bounces+dnade.ext=orange@gnu.org] De la part de Roman Rakus
> Envoyé : mercredi 10 avril 2013 15:42
> À : bug-bash@gnu.org
> Objet : Re: to - Bookmark file system locations in bash on POSIX-like
> syste
I think the much better would be to improve getopt command or getopts
builtin.
RR
On 04/10/2013 03:35 PM, dnade@orange.com wrote:
Sorry to hack the thread, but I was wondering too if there was actually a
place/list to announce such contributions.
I've recently developpedhttps://github.co
Sorry to hack the thread, but I was wondering too if there was actually a
place/list to announce such contributions.
I've recently developped https://github.com/Anvil/bash-argsparse (high level
argument parsing library for bash) and wanted to submit it to the "bash
community" for review, commen
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:51:19PM -0500, Mara Kim wrote:
> The biggest benefit is that it is just plain easier than managing a
> directory of symbolic links on your own. I am extremely lazy.
>
> Here is an example use case. At the end of a work day, I like to bookmark
> the folder I am working in
On 6 Apr 2013 01:49, "Mara Kim" wrote:
>
> > See the `-f' option to ln.
>
> So I did some experimentation, and it is not sufficient to simply use the
-f option to ln to update bookmarks
> $ ln -s /bin foo
> # foo -> /bin/
> $ ln -sf /etc foo
> ln: failed to create symbolic link `rot/etc': Permissi
> See the `-f' option to ln.
So I did some experimentation, and it is not sufficient to simply use the
-f option to ln to update bookmarks
$ ln -s /bin foo
# foo -> /bin/
$ ln -sf /etc foo
ln: failed to create symbolic link `rot/etc': Permission denied
You also need to use the -n option to preven
On 2013-04-04 20:51, Mara Kim wrote:
> To get back on track. Note that this process is the same even if the 'work'
> bookmark already exists, while doing things by hand would throw an error
> without first removing the old link.
See the `-f' option to ln.
> Also you would need to remember to use
Actually, that seems like kind of a good point to me. I think I may dabble
with your tool!
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Mara Kim wrote:
> Hi Domingo,
>
> The biggest benefit is that it is just plain easier than managing a
> directory of symbolic links on your own. I am extremely lazy.
>
> He
Hi Domingo,
The biggest benefit is that it is just plain easier than managing a
directory of symbolic links on your own. I am extremely lazy.
Here is an example use case. At the end of a work day, I like to bookmark
the folder I am working in on my cluster with
to -b work
The next day, I can co
On 2013-04-04 21:05, Domingo Ignacio Galdos wrote:
> Hn, I use a similar tool called ln
>
> In all seriousness what value does or could a tool like this add above ln?
>
> ln -s ~/some/long/path ~/bookmark
> cd ~/bookmark
> cd ~/bookmark/nested/tab/completion
> rm ~/bookmark
>
> Sorry I don't mean t
Hn, I use a similar tool called ln
In all seriousness what value does or could a tool like this add above ln?
ln -s ~/some/long/path ~/bookmark
cd ~/bookmark
cd ~/bookmark/nested/tab/completion
rm ~/bookmark
Sorry I don't mean that in a snarly way I am curious if you can come up or
have with any
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Chris Down wrote:
> Hmm, that's interesting and potentially desirable (I think this is the
first
> time I've said that on this list!).
It gets downright dangerous once you realize you can use the -p option to
do things like
$ vim $(to -p foo/bar.cpp)
I've done a c
Hi Mara,
On 2013-04-04 03:58, Mara Kim wrote:
> What is do you mean specifically by function vs [? Do you mean parens? Is
> function a bash-ism?
function is a bashism, yes. You can just omit it and your function declarations
magically become POSIX.
> I am really only enthusiastic about the int
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Mara Kim wrote:
> Hi Chris!
>
> Actually, this is great! Style critique, plus runtime analysis. Am I
> dreaming? :D
>
> I see your point regarding the use of variables to hold commands. Using
> PATH is a much better method of handling that functionality. And w
Hi Chris!
Actually, this is great! Style critique, plus runtime analysis. Am I
dreaming? :D
I see your point regarding the use of variables to hold commands. Using
PATH is a much better method of handling that functionality. And with the
magic of vim and git *POOF* it's gone...
What is do
Hi Mara,
On 2013-04-03 17:08, Mara Kim wrote:
> I thought you guys might enjoy this simple tool I wrote. It's under GPL so
> use it, hack it, fork it, ignore it, etc.
I'm sorry that the first reply has to be criticism, but since you posted it on a
mailing list, I guess you're looking for feedbac
17 matches
Mail list logo
