a symbolic link, test shall evaluate the expression by
resolving the symbolic link and using the file referenced by the link."
-Jonathan Hankins
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Stephane Chazelas <
stephane.chaze...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-02-09 14:59:06 -0700, Bob Proulx:
> [..
$ touch foo
$ ln -s foo bar
$ [[ -f foo ]] && [[ ! -h foo ]] && echo "exists and is not a symlink"
exists and is not a symlink
$ [[ -f bar ]] && [[ ! -h bar ]] && echo "exists and is not a symlink"
$
-Jonathan Hankins
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 1/30/15 3:50 PM, Jonathan Hankins wrote:
> > I agree about being able to use named pipes, etc. as HISTFILE. My
> concern
> > is that I think there may be a code path that leads to rename() and
> > open(O_TRUNC...) b
e non-regular files.
I also think the handling of the case where HISTFILE is a symlink may
misbehave (it would read the history in from the file the link refers to,
but on overwrite, replace the symlink, instead of the file it refers to.)
-Jonathan Hankins
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Andreas S
with more knowledge than myself might want to look at
this closer. It seems like it might be a vector for abuse.
-Jonathan Hankins
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:58:43AM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > On 1/30/15 4:36 AM, crocket wrote
I can get some time, I will play around with it over the weekend and see
if I can confirm my suspicions.
-Jonathan Hankins
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 1/30/15 2:09 PM, Jonathan Hankins wrote:
> > A test with the POSIX S_ISREG macro on HISTFILE will determine i
quot;$link,$link_dir,$link_dest"
done < <(find . -type l -printf '%p|%h|%l\n' 2>/dev/null)
-Jonathan Hankins
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 1/16/15 10:32 AM, Dr. Werner Fink wrote:
> &
If this behavior (ignore with warning one or more Ctrl-Z keypresses during
loops before eventually backgrounding) was desirable, there may be code
that could be borrowed from IGNOREEOF handling (I haven't looked at it).
-Jonathan Hankins
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>
{!foo} intended to yield the name of the var that foo references,
now that foo has been turned into a nameref? I wanted to use this
functionality in a script, but wanted to make sure it was intentional
before I rely on it.
Thanks,
-Jonathan Ha
