[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: extension of file-test primitives?
From: |
Chet Ramey |
Subject: |
Re: extension of file-test primitives? |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:08:30 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 |
On 8/19/17 9:52 PM, PePa wrote:
> In that case, would not [[ =fx $file ]] be more workable and in line with
> common GNU short commandline option practice??
Something. And not a character that's already a shell metacharacter,
either, which cuts down the available choices. `=', `+', or maybe
(though it's a distant third) `--'.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Greg Wooledge, 2017/08/21
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Chet Ramey, 2017/08/21
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, L A Walsh, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Greg Wooledge, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, L A Walsh, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Pierre Gaston, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Greg Wooledge, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Chet Ramey, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Dethrophes, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Chet Ramey, 2017/08/23