On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Miles Baderwrote:
> What would seem interesting would be a way to autoload bash completion
> support for each command ... as it would seem not uncommon to have shell
> sessions where the user never tries to use completion for 99% of the
> commands handled.
>
> [or
Peter Samuelson writes:
> If you can think of a way to implement this same stuff (and remember,
> bash-completion supports a _lot_ more complex cases than 'kill')
> without adding 200 kB of shell functions to bash's runtime, by all
> means, do it and see how it works out.
What would seem interest
[Philip Ashmore]
> I guess I'm confused as to why bash completion needs these.
Easy enough to read /etc/bash_completion and /etc/bash_completion.d/*
and see for yourself why it needs these.
bash-completion is full of special cases to "do the right thing" in
hundreds or thousands of different cir
On 28/05/12 19:17, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Philip Ashmore]
On my machine running "set> set.txt&& ls -lsa set.txt" reveals that my
environment contains 225517 of "stuff" - some of it is even being
taken up by
exported function definitions!
As mentioned earlier, 'set' is not reporting much mo
[Philip Ashmore]
> On my machine running "set > set.txt && ls -lsa set.txt" reveals that my
> environment contains 225517 of "stuff" - some of it is even being
> taken up by
> exported function definitions!
As mentioned earlier, 'set' is not reporting much more than the
environment exported to ex
On 26/05/12 04:34, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Philip Ashmore writes:
>
>> Here's where I wish I was a shell script guru:
>>for var in `cat set.txt`; do
>> { if in env discard }
>>done
>>{ sort offenders by decending size }
>> Here's a summary of the ones that caught my eye. Sorry if
Philip Ashmore writes:
> Here's where I wish I was a shell script guru:
>for var in `cat set.txt`; do
> { if in env discard }
>done
>{ sort offenders by decending size }
> Here's a summary of the ones that caught my eye. Sorry if I missed
> anyone out!
Oh. This is smelling l
Hi,
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 08:14:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Philip Ashmore writes:
> I'm curious why even your set of shell variables is so large, though. My
> environment is only 1699 bytes on a system I logged onto via ssh, and 1998
> on my desktop (running Xfce). One of the biggest c
On 26/05/12 04:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm curious why even your set of shell variables is so large, though. My
> environment is only 1699 bytes on a system I logged onto via ssh, and
1998
> on my desktop (running Xfce). One of the biggest chunks of that is
> LS_COLORS.
>
Here's where I wish
Philip Ashmore writes:
> According to "man sh" (which links to the dash man page)
> set [{ -options | +options | -- }] arg ...
> The set command performs three different functions.
> With no arguments, it lists the values of all shell variables.
> So are these copi
On 26/05/12 03:59, Philip Ashmore wrote:
> On 26/05/12 03:50, Philip Ashmore wrote:
>>
>> That's 225517 bytes that needs to be copied every time a script runs.
>
> Yeah that should read "every time a script or program runs."
>
> Philip
>
Sorry Ben, our emails collided.
According to "man sh" (whic
On 26/05/12 03:50, Philip Ashmore wrote:
That's 225517 bytes that needs to be copied every time a script runs.
Yeah that should read "every time a script or program runs."
Philip
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 03:50:02AM +0100, Philip Ashmore wrote:
[...]
> On my machine running "set > set.txt && ls -lsa set.txt" reveals that my
> environment contains 225517 of "stuff" - some of it is even being
> taken up by
> exported function definitions!
>
> That's 225517 bytes that needs to
13 matches
Mail list logo
