On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> Curious, but how difficult or problematic would it be
> to allow using brace-expansion (ex. {f,x} ) as a short-hand
> to test/combine file-op tests like:
>
> Allowing:
>
> test -{f,x} /bin/ls && ...
> or
>if [[ -{f,x} $file ]]; th
On 8/9/17 10:30 PM, Leon Klingele wrote:
> I'm experiencing line wrapping issues when using bash with fzf[1].
> The issue is described in [2] and it looks like it is not caused by fzf
> but instead by bash itself.
>
> For the sake of completeness, here are the steps to reproduce:
>
> 1. Use bash
On 8/20/17 5:50 PM, Leon Klingele wrote:
>> you might try running your combination in something that stores
>> all I/O
>
> Awesome idea! I did record a session with 'script'.
Please send your typescript to the list.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
Peter & Kelly Passchier wrote:
Sorry, indeed I meant: [[ -fx $file ]]
All -ge -ne -eq etc. options are binary operators, while these new
ones wpuld be unary, so I think the parsing would be unequivocal.
---
Yeah, but as I said:
While "-ge $file" could probably be parsed reliably apart from
> Please send your typescript to the list.
Here you go (see attachment).
> If these steps leave the cursor in a different position than readline
> expects it to be (before step 4), even the redraw-current-line at the
> end of the macro may not help. You could try replacing the key sequence
> to r
On 8/19/17 8:30 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
> Curious, but how difficult or problematic would it be
> to allow using brace-expansion (ex. {f,x} ) as a short-hand
> to test/combine file-op tests like:
>
> Allowing:
>
> test -{f,x} /bin/ls && ...
> or
> if [[ -{f,x} $file ]]; then ... ; fi
>
> inste
On 8/19/17 9:52 PM, PePa wrote:
> In that case, would not [[ =fx $file ]] be more workable and in line with
> common GNU short commandline option practice??
Something. And not a character that's already a shell metacharacter,
either, which cuts down the available choices. `=', `+', or maybe
(thoug
On 8/20/17 5:20 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
> PePa wrote:
>> In that case, would not [[ =fx $file ]] be more workable and in line with
>> common GNU short commandline option practice??
>
> Do you mean '-fx' ? I assume you are meaning as an alternate?
No. If you're going to propose different functionali
On 8/21/17 9:27 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 05:30:34PM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
>> Allowing:
>>
>> test -{f,x} /bin/ls && ...
>> or
>>if [[ -{f,x} $file ]]; then ... ; fi
>>
>> instead of:
>>
>> test -f /bin/ls && test -x /bin/ls && ...
>
> You could write your own h
