* triviality with prompts @ 2014-12-03 0:17 Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 3:02 ` Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 0:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh Users Reading in the scrolls, I find this: setopt prompt_subst ... which permits this: _red=$'%{\e[1;31m%}' _grn=$'%{\e[1;32m%}' _yel=$'%{\e[1;33m%}' _blu=$'%{\e[1;34m%}' _mag=$'%{\e[1;35m%}' PS3=$'\n $_red MAKE A SELECTION ... ' PS1=$'\n$_yel%l $_red%m $_grn%n $_blu%d $_mag%(3L.%L.)$ %{\e[0m%}' ... which sure makes things more readable. However I note that PS3 will permit that variable substitution even without " setopt prompt_subst ", whereas PS1 requires it. Is that an anomaly or necessary? Could that setopt be on by default? Interesting that the variable expands even tho inside single quotes, not that I'm complaining. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 0:17 triviality with prompts Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 3:02 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-03 4:28 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-03 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh Users On Dec 2, 4:17pm, Ray Andrews wrote: } } PS3 will permit that variable substitution even without } " setopt prompt_subst ", whereas PS1 requires it. I think you've deluded yourself somehow. PS3 behaves just like all the other prompts. } Interesting that the variable expands even tho inside single } quotes, not that I'm complaining. Once again you're confused about how quoting works. The variable isn't inside single quotes at the time the prompt is expanded. In fact, in your example $'...' is NOT the same as single quotes. If you'd read a little further through the scrolls, you'd have seen you need neither _red=$'%{\e[1;31m%}' nor prompt_subst: PS3=$'\n %F{red} MAKE A SELECTION ... %f' PS1=$'\n%F{yellow}%l %F{red}%m %F{green}%n %F{blue}%d %F{magenta}%(3L.%L.)$ %f' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 3:02 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-03 4:28 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 4:38 ` Lawrence Velázquez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 4:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 12/02/2014 07:02 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Dec 2, 4:17pm, Ray Andrews wrote: > } > } PS3 will permit that variable substitution even without > } " setopt prompt_subst ", whereas PS1 requires it. > > I think you've deluded yourself somehow. PS3 behaves just like all the > other prompts. A red herring there. I had this form, which seems not to need the option: PS3=$'\n '"$_red MAKE A SELECTION ... " ... and I changed it to this form, which does need it: PS3=$'\n $_red MAKE A SELECTION ... ' ... whereas in PS1 I had the (what look very much like) single quotes only version, which does need it, so one seemed to need it, and the other not. ... so the issue was quote voodoo, as usual. > > Once again you're confused about how quoting works. The variable isn't > inside single quotes at the time the prompt is expanded. In fact, in your > example $'...' is NOT the same as single quotes. God knows. If ' ... ' isn't single quotes then is sure has me fooled. One day it will all make sense. I know everything is different with prompt strings tho, it's a world unto itself where single quotes are not single quotes. > If you'd read a little further through the scrolls, you'd have seen you > need neither _red=$'%{\e[1;31m%}' nor prompt_subst: > > PS3=$'\n %F{red} MAKE A SELECTION ... %f' > PS1=$'\n%F{yellow}%l %F{red}%m %F{green}%n %F{blue}%d %F{magenta}%(3L.%L.)$ %f' There are so many scrolls! I'll get there. Anyway, I like my way better. Even knowing only a tiny bit about the prompt, it is astonishing how much love went into that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 4:28 ` Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 4:38 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2014-12-03 16:20 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2014-12-03 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: zsh-users On Dec 2, 2014, at 11:28 PM, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > On 12/02/2014 07:02 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > >> Once again you're confused about how quoting works. The variable isn't >> inside single quotes at the time the prompt is expanded. In fact, in your >> example $'...' is NOT the same as single quotes. > > God knows. If ' ... ' isn't single quotes then is sure has me fooled. One day > it will all make sense. I know everything is different with prompt strings tho, > it's a world unto itself where single quotes are not single quotes. Peruse the "QUOTING" section in zshmisc(1). Surrounding a string with single quotes ('foo') is not the same as surrounding a string with single quotes preceded by a dollar sign ($'foo'). vq ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 4:38 ` Lawrence Velázquez @ 2014-12-03 16:20 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 16:43 ` Roman Neuhauser ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lawrence Velázquez; +Cc: zsh-users On 12/02/2014 08:38 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > Peruse the "QUOTING" section in zshmisc(1). Surrounding a string with > single quotes ('foo') is not the same as surrounding a string with > single quotes preceded by a dollar sign ($'foo'). vq Thanks, that's a nice summary. It's especially nice of it to mention the $'foo' gotcha, which is ignored in other docs. Just when I thought I knew what a single quote was :( But the zshbuiltins page, under 'print' doesn't go into any detail about this $'foo' form. Never mind, the prompt string is the only place I've seen it so far and I'm forewarned now for the next time I see it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 16:20 ` Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 16:43 ` Roman Neuhauser 2014-12-03 17:10 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 21:16 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2014-12-03 21:22 ` Bart Schaefer 2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Roman Neuhauser @ 2014-12-03 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: Lawrence Velázquez, zsh-users # rayandrews@eastlink.ca / 2014-12-03 08:20:43 -0800: > On 12/02/2014 08:38 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > > Peruse the "QUOTING" section in zshmisc(1). Surrounding a string with > > single quotes ('foo') is not the same as surrounding a string with > > single quotes preceded by a dollar sign ($'foo'). vq > > Thanks, that's a nice summary. It's especially nice of it to mention > the $'foo' gotcha, which is ignored in other docs. Just when I > thought I knew what a single quote was :( But the zshbuiltins page, > under 'print' doesn't go into any detail about this $'foo' form. > Never mind, the prompt string is the only place I've seen it so far > and I'm forewarned now for the next time I see it. well, $'' is apparently different syntax from '', and it's dangerous to assume that two different syntaxes have the same semantics. YMMV, but when i'm working on a script, the biggest slice of the time spent with the various zsh* man pages is in zshmisc(1) and zshexpn(1). you might also get some new insight from giving them a read or two. -- roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 16:43 ` Roman Neuhauser @ 2014-12-03 17:10 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 17:39 ` Roman Neuhauser 2014-12-03 21:14 ` Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roman Neuhauser; +Cc: Lawrence Velázquez, zsh-users On 12/03/2014 08:43 AM, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > well, $'' is apparently different syntax from '', and it's dangerous > to assume that two different syntaxes have the same semantics. *Another* gotcha yet again? Yes, making assumptions is dangerous, but not doing anything for fear of the next gotcha is not an option. I guess one just walks through the mine-field and when things blow up, you know you've found a mine. It's only software, so no one dies. Trial and error. > YMMV, but when i'm working on a script, the biggest slice of the time > spent with the various zsh* man pages is in zshmisc(1) and zshexpn(1). > you might also get some new insight from giving them a read or two. Thanks. So many scrolls! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 17:10 ` Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 17:39 ` Roman Neuhauser 2014-12-03 21:14 ` Bart Schaefer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Roman Neuhauser @ 2014-12-03 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: zsh-users # rayandrews@eastlink.ca / 2014-12-03 09:10:54 -0800: > So many scrolls! the full listing is at the top of zshall(1). :) -- roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 17:10 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 17:39 ` Roman Neuhauser @ 2014-12-03 21:14 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-03 23:14 ` Ray Andrews 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-03 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: Roman Neuhauser, Lawrence Velázquez, Zsh Users On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > On 12/03/2014 08:43 AM, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > >> well, $'' is apparently different syntax from '', and it's dangerous to >> assume that two different syntaxes have the same semantics. > > *Another* gotcha yet again? No, this is the same gotcha as before, so to speak. That's dollar-single-single, not dollar-double. There is no special syntax for a double-quote preceded by a dollar. Roman just didn't put anything in between his quotes. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 21:14 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-03 23:14 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-04 5:06 ` Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bart Schaefer; +Cc: Roman Neuhauser, Lawrence Velázquez, Zsh Users On 12/03/2014 01:14 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > No, this is the same gotcha as before, so to speak. That's > dollar-single-single, not dollar-double. There is no special syntax > for a double-quote preceded by a dollar. Roman just didn't put > anything in between his quotes. > Ok, I'll 'stand down' on that. I'm thinking that might be the end of the line for quote complexities? Or at least for all the gross forms? \ ' ' " " $' ' $( ) ... all cross-pollinating each other in various ways, but is that it for the main species? It's really not that bad if only one could get the complete overview somewhere before diving in. Oh, and of course there's the various flavorings like 'rc_quotes' and I guess a few others like that. Tractable. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 23:14 ` Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-04 5:06 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-04 18:42 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-04 5:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On Dec 3, 3:14pm, Ray Andrews wrote: } Subject: Re: triviality with prompts } } \ } ' ' } " " } $' ' } $( ) } } ... all cross-pollinating each other in various ways, but is that it for } the main species? $( ) is substitution, not quoting. It is true that if you have both outer double quotes and a $( ) inside them, then the rules for parsing command substitution take over until the matching close-paren is found; but otherwise nothing is quoted differently just because it is inside a command substitution. } Oh, and of course there's the various flavorings like 'rc_quotes' and } I guess a few others like that. Tractable. The other major one is aritmetic evaluation in (( )) where everything behaves as if double quoted, and then there are the special cases in parameter subscript expressions, which can get a bit strange but in practice you'll almost never run into. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-04 5:06 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-04 18:42 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-06 21:28 ` Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-04 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 12/03/2014 09:06 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Dec 3, 3:14pm, Ray Andrews wrote: > } Subject: Re: triviality with prompts > } > } \ > } ' ' > } " " > } $' ' > } $( ) > } > } ... all cross-pollinating each other in various ways, but is that it for > } the main species? > > $( ) is substitution, not quoting. It is true that if you have both > outer double quotes and a $( ) inside them, then the rules for parsing > command substitution take over until the matching close-paren is found; > but otherwise nothing is quoted differently just because it is inside > a command substitution. > > } Oh, and of course there's the various flavorings like 'rc_quotes' and > } I guess a few others like that. Tractable. > > The other major one is aritmetic evaluation in (( )) where everything > behaves as if double quoted, and then there are the special cases in > parameter subscript expressions, which can get a bit strange but in > practice you'll almost never run into. > <ignorable-philosophical-musing> Thinking about all that, I find my self still fuzzy. What do we really mean by 'quote'? It's a delineated block of characters in which some prescribed semantics will apply. So " $() " is also a delineated block of characters in which some prescribed semantics will apply, ditto " (()) " and " [[]] ", yes? So, what's so special about what we call 'quoting'? Maybe what I'm reaching for with the list above is a complete list of 'delineators'. So, if one had such a list, one could learn the syntactic rules inside each one in a tractable way. Maybe the whole idea of 'quote' is not so special, it's just two or three of the many more ways that zsh will process a delineated block of characters. The only thing 'special' about it is that the delineators are the keyboard characters that we call quotation marks, thus we are 'quoting'. Or is quoting really, syntactically, a different 'kind' of thing than " $() " or " [] "? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-04 18:42 ` Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-06 21:28 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-07 0:37 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-06 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On Dec 4, 10:42am, Ray Andrews wrote: } Subject: Re: triviality with prompts } } On 12/03/2014 09:06 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: } > } > $( ) is substitution, not quoting. } } Thinking about all that, I find my self still fuzzy. What do we really } mean by 'quote'? It's a delineated block of characters in which some } prescribed semantics will apply. Not exactly. It's a delineated block of characters in which a defined syntax will apply. Of course in the colloquial sense the meaning of an individual grapheme in a syntax is its "semantics", but in the computer science sense the syntax and semantics of a language are distinct. Quoting defines the meaning of individual characters, e.g., transforming the digraph \n into something else -- either a literal "n" or a newline, depending on the interpretation of the backslash. Quoting also creates a syntactic unit, affecting how a collection of graphemes is assembled into tokens (most often, resulting in a single token instead of many, and usually resulting in tokens that are treated as plain strings and not as having any particular higher-level meaning). Constructs like $( ) define the meaning and higher-level structure of the language tokens that came from interpretation of the syntax. The shell language is unusual among programming languages in that it allows certain semantic constructs to be interpreted even when inside certain syntactic constructs (double-quoting, mostly), so that it's necessary to interleave syntactic and semantic analysis (and even execution of the code resulting from the latter) to arrive at a final tokenization. Most programming languages force you to make that explicit, but the shell is all about building up or cutting up strings by implicit con- catenation and delineation, so it takes all kinds of shortcuts that make the language ugly to formally define but faster to interact with in the common cases. E.g. in '$(echo foo bar)' the definition of single quotes means that none of $ ( or ) is special, and results in one plain-string token made up of the characters between the single quotes. Conversely in "$(echo foo bar)" the definition of double quotes means that $ is special, which in turn means that the digraph $( introduces a subexpression that has to be interpreted using the higher-level rules of command substitution, which consumes everything up through the closing paren. The final token can only be generated after the command inside the parens is executed and its output captured, but it still results in only one plain string. Compare to $(echo foo bar) without the quotes, which normally results in two string tokens foo and bar, or to "\$(echo foo bar)" where the definition of backslash means that the digraph \$ transforms into a non-special $ which therefore is NOT part of a $( digraph and therefore does not introduce command substitution. } Maybe what I'm reaching for with the list above is a complete list of } 'delineators'. So, if one had such a list, one could learn the syntactic } rules inside each one in a tractable way. In zsh's info doc, sections 6.9 (Quoting) and 14 (Expansion) together make up that list. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-06 21:28 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-07 0:37 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-07 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 12/06/2014 01:28 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > Not exactly. It's a delineated block of characters in which a defined > syntax will apply. Of course in the colloquial sense the meaning of an > individual grapheme in a syntax is its "semantics", but in the computer > science sense the syntax and semantics of a language are distinct. Yeah, may as well be strict. I don't want to split hairs too finely tho, and I only know the rules for this in natural language. > Quoting defines the meaning of individual characters, e.g., transforming > the digraph \n into something else -- either a literal "n" or a newline, > depending on the interpretation of the backslash. Quoting also creates > a syntactic unit, affecting how a collection of graphemes is assembled > into tokens (most often, resulting in a single token instead of many, > and usually resulting in tokens that are treated as plain strings and > not as having any particular higher-level meaning). > > Constructs like $( ) define the meaning and higher-level structure of > the language tokens that came from interpretation of the syntax. The > shell language is unusual among programming languages in that it allows > certain semantic constructs to be interpreted even when inside certain > syntactic constructs (double-quoting, mostly), so that it's necessary > to interleave syntactic and semantic analysis (and even execution of > the code resulting from the latter) to arrive at a final tokenization. > > Most programming languages force you to make that explicit, but the > shell is all about building up or cutting up strings by implicit con- > catenation and delineation, so it takes all kinds of shortcuts that > make the language ugly to formally define but faster to interact with > in the common cases. You know, once you 'just say it' half the problem goes away. I'm still looking for rigor. Once I just stop looking for it I won't get into a lather nearly so often. > E.g. in > '$(echo foo bar)' > the definition of single quotes means that none of $ ( or ) is special, > and results in one plain-string token made up of the characters between > the single quotes. Conversely in > "$(echo foo bar)" > the definition of double quotes means that $ is special, which in turn > means that the digraph $( introduces a subexpression that has to be > interpreted using the higher-level rules of command substitution, which > consumes everything up through the closing paren. The final token can > only be generated after the command inside the parens is executed and > its output captured, but it still results in only one plain string. > > Compare to $(echo foo bar) without the quotes, which normally results > in two string tokens foo and bar, or to > "\$(echo foo bar)" > where the definition of backslash means that the digraph \$ transforms > into a non-special $ which therefore is NOT part of a $( digraph and > therefore does not introduce command substitution. > > } Maybe what I'm reaching for with the list above is a complete list of > } 'delineators'. So, if one had such a list, one could learn the syntactic > } rules inside each one in a tractable way. > > In zsh's info doc, sections 6.9 (Quoting) and 14 (Expansion) together > make up that list. > That, sir, was beautifully written. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 16:20 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 16:43 ` Roman Neuhauser @ 2014-12-03 21:16 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2014-12-03 21:22 ` Bart Schaefer 2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2014-12-03 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: zsh-users On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > Thanks, that's a nice summary. It's especially nice of it to mention > the $'foo' gotcha, which is ignored in other docs. Just when I thought > I knew what a single quote was :( It's not really a gotcha; the dollar sign frequently has special meaning in shell scripts. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't ever assume that a "$" is a literal. > But the zshbuiltins page, under 'print' doesn't go into any detail about > this $'foo' form. zshmisc(1) says: A string enclosed between `$'' and `'' is processed the same way as the string arguments of the print builtin, and the resulting string is considered to be entirely quoted. Which means you want to figure out how the print builtin treats its string arguments, from zshbuiltins(1): With no flags or with the flag `-', the arguments are printed on the standard output as described by echo, with the following differences... Then you probably also want to look up what echo does: Write each arg on the standard output, with a space separating each one. If the -n flag is not present, print a newline at the end. echo recognizes the following escape sequences... vq ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 16:20 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 16:43 ` Roman Neuhauser 2014-12-03 21:16 ` Lawrence Velázquez @ 2014-12-03 21:22 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-03 23:40 ` Ray Andrews 2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-03 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh Users (Oops, sorry for Cc'ing everybody on that last message.) On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > But the zshbuiltins page, under 'print' doesn't go into any detail about > this $'foo' > form. It doesn't go into detail about ANY form of quoting ... because quoting is evaluated the same way no matter what command is involved. (The special meaning of backslash to certain commands like print and echo is entirely separate from quoting, though often similar in effect.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: triviality with prompts 2014-12-03 21:22 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2014-12-03 23:40 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2014-12-03 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 12/03/2014 01:22 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > (The special meaning of backslash to certain commands like print and > echo is entirely separate from quoting, though often similar in effect.) Yeah, that's a gotcha that I now get, but it sure caused me some grief. I wish there was some string modifier that distinguished between backslash as quote, and backslash as escape. Maybe that's not doable, but I run into situations where I need to protect a ' \n ' but don't care about stripping the backslash off what is a 'real' quoted character. I now know that the escape situation is, technically, not the shell's business, OTOH shell builtins might perhaps not be treated like total strangers when it comes to escapes since they are obviously in the family. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-12-07 0:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-12-03 0:17 triviality with prompts Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 3:02 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-03 4:28 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 4:38 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2014-12-03 16:20 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 16:43 ` Roman Neuhauser 2014-12-03 17:10 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 17:39 ` Roman Neuhauser 2014-12-03 21:14 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-03 23:14 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-04 5:06 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-04 18:42 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-06 21:28 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-07 0:37 ` Ray Andrews 2014-12-03 21:16 ` Lawrence Velázquez 2014-12-03 21:22 ` Bart Schaefer 2014-12-03 23:40 ` Ray Andrews
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/ This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).