Essentially, he wants this function to have git manage a folder the same
way Dropbox does, keeping them in sync automatically, in the background.
You're looking at it like a source repo; I suspect Niels is looking at this
from the point of view of automatic folder backup & sync (or, at least
using
That's not really Shiyao's question. The question really ends up being,
'What is the scope of a fish file outside of a function body?' Most
programming languages have an implicit scope for the program itself.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:56 AM Glenn Jackman wrote:
> The local scope is the function
Great article. I didn't read it all, but I did have one suggestion. You
cover aliases and abbreviations, then say that abbreviations are preferred.
If they are preferred, put them first; for the new learner, you should
always put the thing you want them to learn first, first. When struggling
with a
wrote:
> I will do that if nobody can tell me their real name.
>
>
> R. Mark Volkmann
> Object Computing, Inc.
>
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Myrddin Emrys wrote:
>
> Nothing wrong with crediting "The user who goes by the online moniker
> 'ridiculousfish'
Nothing wrong with crediting "The user who goes by the online moniker
'ridiculousfish'." It's like 'the artist formerly known as Prince' and it's
common practice in journalism.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:23 PM Mark Volkmann
wrote:
> I want to know because I am writing a long article on the fish
The reason is that very low sizes are two things:
* Don't work with fish.
* Often a terminal error.
Terminals that fail to report their size are not unusual. An easy way to
head off both problems is to use a default size (to mis-represent) when
it's likely that the terminal is lying to fish. Note
The general reason for this is terminals that fail to correctly set a width
are more common that terminals less than 20 characters wide. I think the
current behavior (using a default width if the reported width seems
incorrect) will help more people than it hurts.
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:45 AM Ma
I'm not at my computer, but you can use the history variable.
$ my_command $history[0]
I have not done this myself, so I can't remember if you should use
$history[1] instead. Not sure when the current command gets pushed into the
array.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Yvon Thoraval wrote:
>
I find the up arrow (and the various other fishy history shortcuts) to be
notably superior. Just as short (Shift+1, Enter vs Ctrl+P, Enter).
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Fred Alger wrote:
> Here's a very fishy way to do a fancy prompt, straight from my config.fish
> (last section):
> https:/
The syntax is consistent if you see that *math *expects one parameter. But
I agree the example could be clearer.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Wai Yan Pong wrote:
> Torsten and Jon, thank you both.
>
> If you type help, all you get is the example math 1+1 (without quotes).
> Hum... so the exam
Does that mean that you could easily create an alias to do it by creating
something of the effect of:
execute $foo; history --delete $foo
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, ridiculous_fish <
corydo...@ridiculousfish.com> wrote:
> Hi Gavin,
>
> There's no way to run a command with suppressed histor
There are certainly reasons for both patterns. For example, I'm sure many
people have run into the two-nearly-identical-names problem with using
completion. You have a long folder name, and a second very long nearly
identical folder... my linux kernel folders comes to mind. It's a lot
faster to typ
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 09:36:45AM -0500, Myrddin Emrys wrote:
> > The problem with that logo, nice as it is, is that the > should be on
> the
> > right (as the final prompt character) rather than the left.
> > And as far as pretty prompts... I'm of the op
The problem with that logo, nice as it is, is that the > should be on the
right (as the final prompt character) rather than the left.
And as far as pretty prompts... I'm of the opinion that they are a waste of
space overall, but I think that it would be a nice little thing to have on,
perhaps, the
riable in your fish shell?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Steve
>> > (ps. sorry for the initial reply, pressed wrong button)
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:30 PM, David Frascone
>> wrote:
>> >> Same here -- works for me.
I have to say that this has not been my experience. I am not using the
latest fish however; I'm using the default version in the Ubunto repository.
I have had no problems using sudo; it properly remembers and uses my
password timeout.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 09:58, Korek wrote:
> Hello, I have a
The points are valid, if presented in a combatative manner. I don't think
it's a silly article.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 23:00, Philip Ganchev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Terin Stock
> wrote:
> > Just in cased you all missed it:
> > http://markhansen.co.nz/fish-sucks/
> > Discussio
If the DNS was going bye bye, then 'going right to the source' would still
work fine (similar to using the IP). The symptoms are consistent with an
expired domain, or with borked root server resolution. But personally,
'expired domain' seems a much more likely possibility than 'the root DNS
servers
Discoverability isn't a large problem if it is documented well. Perhaps the
documentation for key bindings should mention, in a couple places, how to
set them the fishy way?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 16:27, Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Many people have noticed various problems with defining fi
Thank you both.
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event
I'm a bit hazy on how variables, particularly transient ones, work in fish.
For example, a common idiom in bash is this:
VAR='foo' command
The variable will be set for that command only. I can't seem to replicate
this in fish... when I do this, the command does not receive the modified
environmen
It does sound like a nice feature. My only concern is the use case where you
just recently typed a command with a unique center rather than a unique
beginning. In the past few days, I've had a lot of commands like this:
fetchlist.rb; and ruby Script.rb; and some more stuff...
fetchlist is a script
This would not be a good idea. This would be very confusing... there would
be no easy to way to give feedback to the user why 'su' worked finding their
command one time, but when they tried to search for 'screen su - bob' it
failed.
One and two character searches are not very useful, but it's not t
Easier said than done. In fish, the ? is not a legal part of a variable name
at all... to display a proper suggestion for this error, it would need to do
a special second pass scan of the command, without normal parsing, to see if
it matches a special helpfile for that particular error.
While it mi
Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
> What is the equivalent of csh's "!$" expression (which evaluates to
> the last argument of the previous command) in fish?
I'm curious... I can understand the need to retrieve the previous
command. But what's the value in retrieving the somewhat arbitrary
last argument of
is
> word-wrapping early or something?). Fish is printing incomprehensible
> stuff when you try to complete find -user:
>
> http://d.aaron.gy/fishosx.png
>
>
> Aaron Gyes
>
> On Mar 13, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Myrddin Emrys wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it is just the Gm
Perhaps it is just the Gmail web client, but I was unable to follow this bug
report. Could you perhaps reformat it, or make it as a text file and attach
it?
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Mi
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 6:22 PM, dackz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I'll definitely think about contributing some code to change the
> word behavior, and I'll be sure to study previous implementations,
> since I'm sure it's a touchy matter.
The behavior that I always favored for word removal
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~> echo foo \
> > bar \
> > foobar
> > foo
> > fish: Unknown command "bar"
> > fish: Unknown command "foobar"
> >
> > Why do I want to achieve it?
> > Simply for a reason of readability, I prefer it to
> > echo foo bar foobar barf ...
On 10/18/07, Philip Ganchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The trouble is the 'noclobber' option in the shell that shall not be
> named. It makes the '>' operator modal, so when people write '>' they
> expect something different if they are used to having the option set
> than if they are not.
Mo
I'd like to put my vote in for 'noclobber by default'.
That said, I can understand Axel's reticence... > and >> are fundamental
shell features that almost everyone uses frequently. The more you use
something, the more ingrained it becomes, and the harder it is to imagine it
working differently. I
Hmm. I should cut back on the ranting.
A point I forgot though... I have no problem with only doing the case
insensitive matching if there are no globs/regex. It really does complicate
matters. If the code turns out to be easy however, then working with
globs/regex would be a bonus.
-
On 3/8/07, Martin Baehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that's a good point. if one puts uppercase letters in there it's
presumably done intentionally and getting the case changed on that would
be irritating.
Perhaps... but how often would it happen? Don't forget the scenario of why
you are using
On 3/5/07, Philip Ganchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe it would be useful to somehow indicate that the command has been
changed by a completion. That way you do not have to watch the whole
string, looking for the a one-character change.
In the HTML version of the email, I highlighted the
re not what
you wanted to delete), it's hard to imagine what would.
On 3/5/07, Martin Baehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 11:59:08AM -0600, Myrddin Emrys wrote:
> linux> rm ab*
> Ab* Absolute.txt, Abstract.txt, Abrasive.txt...
> linux> rm Ab*
this i
I think that tab completion should only modify the command line if there is
a single possible change. This is consistent with other tab completions...
when you type linux in your source directory, it does not tab-complete
to the first result, it lists the possible alternatives (all the kernel
sour
When autocompleting, it takes far longer than it seems like it should. For
example, I have 5 files in my home directory (10 counting .files). If I type
"~/c", and then press tab, it takes a full 3 seconds to complete the single
possible match. I do have a slow computer (P800), but doing a listing
Do you plan on marking in some way versions that are considered 'stable'? In other words, versions where no new features had been introduced, only bug-fixes, and nobody had found any odd problems with it?I'm not a bleeding edge kinda guy... stable and safe is my preference. I'd also like to submit
Neither of these is convenient. It is better to have a separate wayof accessing the saved text, because presumably I remember *that* I
saved what I need. That may require iterating through only severalentries till you reach the script. And that can also be madesearchable.I disagree. I don't thin
in other words: do not create multiple files in the users homedirectory,but please move all of them into one directory called .fish (and not
.fish.d as the .d is redundant)Ditto. I fiddle with config files enough that I put use the '-a' flag on my listings pretty constantly... so .fish added a sign
40 matches
Mail list logo
