2008/10/8 Pietro Gagliardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Oct 8, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So, if I continuously want to add and remove functions within one shell
>> (running hypothetically forever), do I have to 'manually' delete those empty
>> left-behind files? --- that is, not
On Oct 8, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
So, if I continuously want to add and remove functions within one
shell (running hypothetically forever), do I have to 'manually'
delete those empty left-behind files? --- that is, not only use
fn name_that_I _don't_need
but also
rm /env/'f
>
> Well... that's an answer, but not very constructive indeed. When do those
> files dissapear?
they don't. but it shouldn't be a problem.
there's no explicit limit. why don't you
sidestep the problem by using a space between
the fixed part and the path?
- erik
So, if I continuously want to add and remove functions within one shell
>> (running hypothetically forever), do I have to 'manually' delete those empty
>> left-behind files? --- that is, not only use
>> fn name_that_I _don't_need
>> but also
>> rm /env/'fn#name_that_I _don't_need' ?
>>
>
> No.
>
On Oct 8, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
So, if I continuously want to add and remove functions within one
shell (running hypothetically forever), do I have to 'manually'
delete those empty left-behind files? --- that is, not only use
fn name_that_I _don't_need
but also
rm /env/'fn#
> > it's done this way, i believe, to ensure that two rc shells running in
> > the same namespaces do not step all over each others' environments. if
> > you simply run 'rfork e' before you experiment with all those
> > functions you won't see the empty files anywhere.
>
> Sorry, but I don't under
>
> it's done this way, i believe, to ensure that two rc shells running in
> the same namespaces do not step all over each others' environments. if
> you simply run 'rfork e' before you experiment with all those
> functions you won't see the empty files anywhere.
Sorry, but I don't understand...
this is a consequence of how environment variables are treated by the
shell and what appears in /env. there is a disconnect between the file
server and the shell (in essence the shell doesn't consult /env upon
each reference. for example if you simply create a file in /env your
current shell won't
> why after creating a function with
>
> fn my_func_name { something }
>
> and removing this function with
>
> fn my_func_name
>
> a file (though of zero size) exists in /env?
>
> (If I create a lot of functions and then want them be removed, I find a lot
> of for-me-uninteresting files in /en
Hello,
why after creating a function with
fn my_func_name { something }
and removing this function with
fn my_func_name
a file (though of zero size) exists in /env?
(If I create a lot of functions and then want them be removed, I find a lot
of for-me-uninteresting files in /env...)
Thanks,
R
10 matches
Mail list logo
