Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: _killall on linux
- X-seq: zsh-workers 12209
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: _killall on linux
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:31:03 +0000
- In-reply-to: <200007100713.JAA18387@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <200007100713.JAA18387@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jul 10, 9:13am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: _killall on linux
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
}
} > It's a bit weird that it's "processes-names" rather than "process-names".
} > (Was there some reason for that?
}
} It doesn't have anything to do with real english -- it's just the tag
} used with some strings appended, to make it easier to remember them.
Aha.
} At least I thought it would be easier...
It's only easier that way if you know about the rule in advance (and if it
is applied consistently, which it may very well be, I haven't looked). Is
it mentioned as a general principle anywhere in the docs?
} > [*] Rather than $( [[ "$UID" = 0 ]] && print -n xa ) I'd suggest the less
} > resource-intensive ${=EUID//(#s)0(#e)/ps xa}.
}
} I wouldn't be agains that patch. But I think it raises the question if
} we should add other default for some systems, such as -u$USER.
As it turns out, the _call to ps is already in a linux-specific section
of _killall, so the syntax for other variants of ps is irrelevant.
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author