ssage for a path that (in this scenario) nothing
ever actually tried to access, and B: indicates a lower apparent limit
than what actually exists.
If that isn't what's going on, then I'm stumped for the moment.
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/05/2014 at 08:20 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:09:40AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> What exactly is the limit on the length of a shebang line in an
>> executable script, when called from within b
*\)\(:\/mnt\/\)home/\1\2\1/g"
You could, of course, add the '-i' flag to have sed make the changes to
the file in place - but I would recommend, instead, redirecting the
output into a separate file and confirming that it is correct, then
copying the new file into place.
--
recently discovered is formally the history comment
character) is the standard way to place a command in the history without
executing it, but for somewhat obvious reasons that does not work with
history expansion. I do not have an example ready to mind, but there
have been times when I would have found
Reply addresses set by hand to work around broken defaults. (Again.)
Paul Jarc wrote:
The Wanderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
!ls /h
How about: ls /h
That works, and explains what exactly that function is supposed to do (I
have inadvertently gotten into that mode at various poi
(And again.)
Bob Proulx wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
Quite some time and several varyingly-significant updates of bash
ago, I was able to perform history expansion on multi-word
commands.
At present and for some while now, [!ls /h] instead expands to
ls /tmp/ /h
This is also what csh does
(And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still* got
an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one. Is there any
particular reason why you ignored my explicit request to not get both
responses?)
Chet Ramey wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
(And again.)
Bob Proulx wrote
Bob Proulx wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
(And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still*
got an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one.
Even though it is not an official standard the best ad-hoc standard
is to set "Mail-Followup-To: " to instru
