On 8/21/17 1:29 PM, Leon Klingele wrote:
>> Please send your typescript to the list.
>
> Here you go (see attachment).
Thanks. I'll see if it reveals anything I don't expect.
>> If these steps leave the cursor in a different position than readline
>> expects it to be (before step 4), even the re
> That macro ends with \C-x\C-r
Actually it ends in \e^\er, it lands in the if-block for me:
https://github.com/junegunn/fzf/blob/55ee4186aa688e524e041971d588a6f002486deb/shell/key-bindings.bash#L83
Replacing \C-r with \C-l "solves" the issue, but again clears the
screen which I'd try to avoid.
On 8/22/17 2:26 PM, Leon Klingele wrote:
>> That macro ends with \C-x\C-r
>
> Actually it ends in \e^\er, it lands in the if-block for me:
> https://github.com/junegunn/fzf/blob/55ee4186aa688e524e041971d588a6f002486deb/shell/key-bindings.bash#L83
Ah, you're using the vi-mode binding. Yes, it appl
Chet Ramey wrote:
[this would] create an incompatibility between
the shell's builtin test and a test binary. That incompatibility would be
almost impossible to resolve.
Agreed. So I agree that limiting this to use with '[['
would be a better choice that would eliminate such problems
Oops: meant to include this w/other response, but oh well..
Chet Ramey wrote:
PePa wrote:
In that case, would not [[ -fx $file ]] be more workable and in line with
common GNU short commandline option practice??
No. If you're going to propose different functionality, don't use
som
Chet Ramey wrote:
On 8/21/17 9:27 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
You could write your own helper functions for this:
-fx() { test -f "$1" && test -x "$1"; }
This is indeed a quick and easy way to implement desired functionality.
Shell functions can do a lot.
Alas, they don't wor
