On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 05Apr2016 16:28, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
>>
>> * Chris Green [04-05-16 14:21]:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:47:03PM -0400, Xu Wang wrote:
>>> > I am so used to using notmuch integrated into mutt (via mutt-kz), that
>>> > I would l
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:47:03PM -0400, Xu Wang wrote:
> I am so used to using notmuch integrated into mutt (via mutt-kz), that
> I would like to be able to understand how someone does *not* use
> notmuch. How do you search for a certain message? Is it simply a
> matter of the following?
>
> 1.
Hi Cameron,
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:50:28AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> Consider using ${1+"$@"}, which preserves quoting.
How is this better than just "$@"? I believe it's non-portable (and
for that reason I'm less familiar with that syntax) but if I
understand correctly it expands like:
On 06Apr2016 16:10, derek martin wrote:
It's a
little more complicated for work mail, as there is some crossover...
But what I do in that case is use filters to make sure all relevant
folders get a copy.
I admit that's wasteful and annoying, but in the overwhelming majority
of cases the message
On 06Apr2016 16:26, derek martin wrote:
Hi Cameron,
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:50:28AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
Consider using ${1+"$@"}, which preserves quoting.
How is this better than just "$@"? I believe it's non-portable (and
for that reason I'm less familiar with that syntax) but
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:38:43 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> For historic reasons, "$@" evaluates to a single "" if there were no
> arguments
> at all, introducing a spurious new empty argument. Possibly the thinking was
> that something like "$@" should never vanish; after all "$x" will pro
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 04:26:52PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> Hi Cameron,
>
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:50:28AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > Consider using ${1+"$@"}, which preserves quoting.
>
> How is this better than just "$@"? I believe it's non-portable (and
> for that reason I'm le
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:38:43AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> > if $1 is set use that, otherwise use "$@" (all arguments, individually
> > quoted)
>
> No, it says ``if $1 is set, use "$@", otherwise use nothing''. See below.
I see. So I had it exactly backwards. :)
> >It seems as though t
On 06Apr2016 19:33, derek martin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:38:43AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> if $1 is set use that, otherwise use "$@" (all arguments, individually quoted)
No, it says ``if $1 is set, use "$@", otherwise use nothing''. See below.
I see. So I had it exactly backwa
On 06Apr2016 18:53, Jon LaBadie wrote:
In the distant past constructions like that were needed because of a
bug in the shells. If you had no arguments, "$@" was passed as "",
a single null argument. Now it is correctly passed as no arguments.
OT BTW I typically used ${@+"$@"} and playing with
On 06Apr2016 19:52, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:38:43 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
For historic reasons, "$@" evaluates to a single "" if there were no arguments
at all, introducing a spurious new empty argument. Possibly the thinking was
that something like "$@" should never
11 matches
Mail list logo
