> No, I just left an operator there when rewriting the chain, here's the
> corrected one:
>
> return strcmp(arg, "-") || strcmp(arg, "!") && strcmp(arg, "(");
Ah, forget about it, I'm not focused.
return strcmp(arg, "!") && strcmp(arg, "(") || !strcmp(arg, "-");
> > Why not:
> >
> > return strcmp(arg, "-") || && strcmp(arg, "!") && strcmp(arg, "(");
>
> Not sure what you're recommending here. Maybe
>
> return (arg[0] != '-' || !strcmp(arg, "-")) && strcmp(arg, "!") &&
> strcmp(arg, "(");
>
> ?
No, I just left an operator there when rewriting the chain
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 09:47, Quentin Rameau wrote:
>
> > My interpretation of the linked thread was that "starts with" is
> > supposed to mean a strict prefix in POSIX, so "-" doesn't start with
> > "-". I haven't found anything in the standard that says that
> > explicitly though. If you'd rath
> My interpretation of the linked thread was that "starts with" is
> supposed to mean a strict prefix in POSIX, so "-" doesn't start with
> "-". I haven't found anything in the standard that says that
> explicitly though. If you'd rather interpret "starts with" to include
> exact matches, feel fr
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 04:22, Quentin Rameau wrote:
>
> Hello Tavian,
>
> > See https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?15235 for a discussion of why the
> > POSIX wording implies that "-" by itself is not part of the expression.
>
> I think this was a pedantly wrong interpretation of the standard.
It cert
On 01/11/2018 09:33, Quentin Rameau wrote:
>
> Is that a Linux‐only patch?
>
Hi Quentin,
It isn't anymore.
Regs,
John
On 01/11/2018 17:54, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 04:12:40PM +0100, John Soros wrote:
>> Yes! This is much, much better! Thanks. Pity that it still doesn't work
>> on OpenBSD.
>
> If the info I gathered over the course of the last hour is correct, then
> the way to query CWD in
Hello Tavian,
> See https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?15235 for a discussion of why the
> POSIX wording implies that "-" by itself is not part of the expression.
I think this was a pedantly wrong interpretation of the standard.
The specification has been reworded since to prevent this:
“The first
