[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: extension of file-test primitives?
From: |
Greg Wooledge |
Subject: |
Re: extension of file-test primitives? |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 09:10:19 -0400 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) |
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:55:55PM +0700, Peter & Kelly Passchier wrote:
> I was the one proposing combining the UNARY operators in a way like -fx, and
> your -a example shows that there is a precedent. Unary and binary operators
> are different, so there is no confusion for the parser or for the user.
No, trust me, there *IS* confusion for the users. Try hanging out
in #bash for a while and you'll see (unless you gouge your eyes out
first).
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, (continued)
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Eric Blake, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, DJ Mills, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Chet Ramey, 2017/08/24
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Greg Wooledge, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, dethrophes, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, L A Walsh, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Peter & Kelly Passchier, 2017/08/23
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?,
Greg Wooledge <=
- Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Chet Ramey, 2017/08/23
Re: extension of file-test primitives?, Chet Ramey, 2017/08/21