Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: PATCH: Re: Btw.: glob-qualifier
- X-seq: zsh-workers 5112
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Btw.: glob-qualifier
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:31:43 -0800
- In-reply-to: <199901291337.OAA15219@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <199901291337.OAA15219@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jan 29, 2:37pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: PATCH: Re: Btw.: glob-qualifier
}
} > [...] (o(ug=w,o+r)) for "user and group must have exactly the write
} > bit set, and other must have at least r" and (o(u+x,go-w)) for "user
} > must have at least the execute bit set, and group and other must not
} > have write" and so on.
}
} The patch below implements this (with a few extras).
Nifty! Now I only have one question ... is there another, better letter
than `o' that could be adopted (since the mode is no longer `o'ctal),
thus giving us both o and O for ascending/descending sorts, as in the
parameter flags?
(I'd ask about this on zsh-users first, though, just in case anybody is
making some important use of the old undocumented `o'.)
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author