Hi Chet,
Here you go, if you're inclined. Minimally invasive and decidedly
non-revolutionary in terms on English lexicon.
Patch attached.
At 2021-06-05T23:29:58-0400, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> doc/oldbash.texi
> 178:manual. Brian and Diane would like to thank Chet Ramey for his
>
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 5:50 AM Léa Gris wrote:
> Le 05/06/2021 à 18:47, John Passaro écrivait :
> > I can see a couple reasons why it would be a good thing, and in the con
> > column only "I personally don't have time to go through the manual and
> make
> > these changes". but I'd happily upvote
> Can you write a set of rules that encapsulates what you would like to see?
> Or can the group?
>
I think it's a bit weird that !(.foo) can match . and .. when * doesn't.
The other means roughly "anything here", and the other means "anything but
.foo here",
so having the latter match things the
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 1:31 PM Ilkka Virta wrote:
> Personally, I'd just want an option to always make . and .. hidden from
> globs. Or rather,
> to never generate . or .. as a pathname component via globbing. But
> without affecting
> other behaviour, like dotglob, and without precluding the use
Le 06/06/2021 à 11:33, Ilkka Virta écrivait :
In fact, that generic 'they' is so common and accepted, that you just used
it yourself
in the part I quoted above.
Either you're acting in bad faith, or you're so confused by your
gender-neutral delusion that you don't remember that in normal peopl
Le 06/06/2021 à 06:35, G. Branden Robinson écrivait :
Here you go, if you're inclined. Minimally invasive and decidedly
non-revolutionary in terms on English lexicon.
Your careful patch not using custom grammar is admirable. Although I
remain alarmed because this is a work to obey a demand fr
Léa, I see that in the section Ilkka quoted you were using it in the
plural. However Ilkka is exactly right; despite "they" being technically
plural, using it for somebody of undetermined gender has been in the
mainstream since long before inclusive language. "Someone left *their*
book, there's no
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:49 PM Léa Gris wrote:
> Either you're acting in bad faith, or you're so confused by your
> gender-neutral delusion that you don't remember that in normal people's
> grammar, "they" is a plural pronoun.
>
Argh, no, that's just an example of the fact that I can't read. Sor
6 Haziran 2021 Pazar tarihinde Ilkka Virta yazdı:
>
> I do wonder, though, what the gender-neutral delusion here would be? That
> there exist women
> who use computers and Unix-like systems, and not just men? Even I know, in
> real life, some
> female Linux users, and while I haven't asked about s
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Oğuz wrote:
> If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not
> bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or
> "their".
Possible, but it detracts from the clarity of the sentence that it is in.
> Though I don't think
6 Haziran 2021 Pazar tarihinde Alain D D Williams yazdı:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Oğuz wrote:
>
> > If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not
> > bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or
> > "their".
>
> Possible, but it detracts
In my previous message, I wrote:
> Yes, it all depends on the "universal set" from which the matches of the inner
> `pattern-list' are subtracted.
> But in the current implementation, the inner matches are subtracted from:
> - all files, if dotglob is set
> - all except dot files, if dotglob is uns
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0300, Oğuz wrote:
> If that really is a problem that has to be addressed and not
> bike-shedding, let's compromise and say "his/her" instead of "his" or
> "their".
*sigh*
I probably shouldn't do this, but let's dive into this just a bit, because
apparently it's
Le 06/06/2021 à 16:34, Oğuz écrivait :
Then there is no need to change anything.
Exactly.
As a woman, I take no offense when a documentation illustrate a fictive
male character. (and as I will illustrate below, in French pronouns are
tuned in gender and number with the object). I am not offe
On Sun, Jun 6, 2021, at 12:35 AM, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2021-06-05T23:29:58-0400, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> > doc/oldbash.texi
> > 178:manual. Brian and Diane would like to thank Chet Ramey for his
> > 9138:# The alternative explanation is that his frequent use of the
>
>
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 05:00:21PM +0300, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 2:49 PM Léa Gris wrote:
>
> For the second person, there's of course "thou", but for some reason,
> I've never heard anyone suggest using that in practice.
Hast thou never been to Yorkshire or Lancashire? :-)
Hello,
> Personally, I'd just want an option to always make . and .. hidden from
> globs. [...]
If such option existed, I would certainly use it.
As I already said, I can't imagine why anyone would ever want a pattern to
match `.' or `..' (unless the entire path component is literal).
But even i
17 matches
Mail list logo
