On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 07:23:17 PM Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>> @(a&!(b))
>
> This is the syntax ksh93 already uses. So far nobody else has adopted it, but
> the equivalent as you already mentioned is the transformation to:
>
> !(!(...)
On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 07:23:17 PM Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> @(a&!(b))
This is the syntax ksh93 already uses. So far nobody else has adopted it, but
the equivalent as you already mentioned is the transformation to:
!(!(...)|!(...))
It's just a matter of implementing it. Other handy m
On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
Would it be possible to add another extended matching operator to already
supported ones? It's just we have "or" in @() and "not (or)" in !(), but no
"and". And combining patterns without it is awkward.
If I want to say "a and not b", I have to w
Hi everyone,
Would it be possible to add another extended matching operator to already
supported ones? It's just we have "or" in @() and "not (or)" in !(), but no
"and". And combining patterns without it is awkward.
If I want to say "a and not b", I have to write "not (not a or c)", like this:
