* backreferences @ 2015-10-15 18:28 Ray Andrews 2015-10-15 23:16 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-15 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh Users I'm not sure if this is even a good question: test2 () { sstring="before inside after" if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([^i]#inside)(*) ]]; then echo "\n\ndo nothing\n\n" fi echo one $match[1] echo two $match[2] } ... all good. But is is possible to populate 'match' without the 'if' test? Point being that I don't really want to 'do anything' except populate 'match'. There's no problem, I'm just wondering if it can be expressed more simply and I'll bet it can. Better question: In this construction " [^i] " is it possible to use a string rather than a character in the exclusion test? I've found convoluted ways to do it, but is there anything simple? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-15 18:28 backreferences Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-15 23:16 ` Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 1:16 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-15 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh Users On Oct 15, 11:28am, Ray Andrews wrote: } Subject: backreferences } } sstring="before inside after" } if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([^i]#inside)(*) ]]; } } ... all good. But is is possible to populate 'match' } without the 'if' test? The [[ ]] syntax is not part of the "if" syntax; "if" is followed by a command whose exit status is tested, so [[ ]] is a command. Thus you can simply write [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([^i]#inside)(*) ]] by itself. You do need the [[ ]] context to invoke pattern matching. } Better question: } } In this construction " [^i] " is it possible to use a } string rather than a character in the exclusion test? I'm not sure what you're asking. In a pattern, [string] is a character class (match any of s,t,r,i,n,g) and [^string] is the inverse of that character class, but that whole subexpression always matches only one character in the tested string. So "use a string rather than a character" might mean that you want to construct a character class by writing something similar to [^$class] where the parameter $class needs to be expanded, or it might mean that you're trying to not-match multiple characters in the tested string in a certain order. In the latter case you want ^(string), or more often (^(string)), but you also must setopt EXTENDED_GLOB. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-15 23:16 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 1:16 ` Ray Andrews 2015-10-16 2:30 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-16 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 10/15/2015 04:16 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([^i]#inside)(*) ]] Very good, I tried a few things and missed the one that works. But I'm finding out that it's dangerous w.o. the test, since 'match' will remain silently unchanged if the comparison fails. > ... or it might mean that > you're trying to not-match multiple characters in the tested string in > a certain order. Yes. > In the latter case you want ^(string), or more often > (^(string)), but you also must setopt EXTENDED_GLOB. Sorry for the ambiguity. Clarity in the mind of the sender and clarity in the mind of the receiver are not the same thing. I mean that the match should fail not on meeting one character (or selection of characters), but it should fail on meeting a specific sequence of characters: test () { sstring="abcdeedcbaabcde" if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([(^(edcba))]*)(edcba)(*) ]]; then echo "you have a match" else match= fi echo "one $match[1]" echo "two $match[2]" echo "three $match[3]" } one abcde two edcba three abcde I tried to learn how to do that with sed and never did get it figured out. zsh can give us just about most of what we want anyway. Pretty cool. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 1:16 ` backreferences Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-16 2:30 ` Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 4:11 ` backreferences Mikael Magnusson 2015-10-16 5:36 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 2:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On Oct 15, 6:16pm, Ray Andrews wrote: } Subject: Re: backreferences } } if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([(^(edcba))]*)(edcba)(*) ]]; Umm, no. [(^(edcba))] is still a character class (open paren, caret, e,d,c,b,a, close paren). Just (^(edcba)) without the square brackets. And you have more parens then, so your $match[] indexes are wrong. if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)((^(edcba))*)(edcba)(*) ]] There are 5 sets of parens, and you care about $match[1], $match[4], and $match[5]. $match[2] is the prefix of $match[1] that was not consumed by the middle *, and $match[3] is an empty substring of $match[2] (because it was excluded from matching). Count off the open parens left to right to see this. In fact you don't even need the middle * because (^edcba) will eat an arbitrarily long string as long as it is not literally "edcba". So you can reduce this to if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)(^edcba)(edcba)(*) ]] and then you're back to only needing $match[1,3]. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 2:30 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 4:11 ` Mikael Magnusson 2015-10-16 4:27 ` backreferences Kurtis Rader ` (2 more replies) 2015-10-16 5:36 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 1 sibling, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Mikael Magnusson @ 2015-10-16 4:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bart Schaefer; +Cc: Zsh Users On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote: > On Oct 15, 6:16pm, Ray Andrews wrote: > } Subject: Re: backreferences > } > } if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([(^(edcba))]*)(edcba)(*) ]]; > > Umm, no. [(^(edcba))] is still a character class (open paren, caret, > e,d,c,b,a, close paren). Just (^(edcba)) without the square brackets. > And you have more parens then, so your $match[] indexes are wrong. > > if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)((^(edcba))*)(edcba)(*) ]] > > There are 5 sets of parens, and you care about $match[1], $match[4], > and $match[5]. $match[2] is the prefix of $match[1] that was not > consumed by the middle *, and $match[3] is an empty substring of > $match[2] (because it was excluded from matching). Count off the > open parens left to right to see this. > > In fact you don't even need the middle * because (^edcba) will eat > an arbitrarily long string as long as it is not literally "edcba". > So you can reduce this to > > if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)(^edcba)(edcba)(*) ]] > > and then you're back to only needing $match[1,3]. As a sidenote, (^foo)* is always useless to write, since (^foo) will expand to the empty string, and then the * will consume anything else. A useful way to think of (^foo) is a * that will exclude any matches that don't match the pattern foo. -- Mikael Magnusson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 4:11 ` backreferences Mikael Magnusson @ 2015-10-16 4:27 ` Kurtis Rader 2015-10-16 5:42 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 2015-10-16 5:05 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 11:14 ` backreferences Peter Stephenson 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Kurtis Rader @ 2015-10-16 4:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mikael Magnusson; +Cc: Bart Schaefer, Zsh Users [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1220 bytes --] On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote: > > As a sidenote, (^foo)* is always useless to write, since (^foo) will > expand to the empty string, and then the * will consume anything else. > A useful way to think of (^foo) is a * that will exclude any matches > that don't match the pattern foo. As a recovering Perl addict I cannot +1 this comment enough. Regular expressions are highly addictive and dangerous. But as Mikael points out it is extremely easy to write a regexp that is worse than worthless. Google "regular expression negative lookahead". Also, Google "now you have two problems". You'll find numerous articles talking about Jamie Zawinski's observation: "Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems." I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. Notwithstanding the fact I still employ regular expressions every single day. The important thing being that I avoid them outside of ad-hoc interactive searches unless I have expended considerable thought about their correctness and failure modes if handed malformed input. -- Kurtis Rader Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 4:27 ` backreferences Kurtis Rader @ 2015-10-16 5:42 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-16 5:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 10/15/2015 09:27 PM, Kurtis Rader wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote: > As a recovering Perl addict I cannot +1 this comment enough. Regular > expressions are highly addictive and dangerous. But as Mikael points > out it is extremely easy to write a regexp that is worse than worthless. Indeed. When it goes wrong it can be a spectacular mess. I could never abide the fact that sed doesn't have a confirm mode. There's 'regexxer' that does. Still, what else than regex is there? Is there any avoiding it? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 4:11 ` backreferences Mikael Magnusson 2015-10-16 4:27 ` backreferences Kurtis Rader @ 2015-10-16 5:05 ` Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 5:28 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 11:14 ` backreferences Peter Stephenson 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 5:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh Users On Oct 16, 6:11am, Mikael Magnusson wrote: } } As a sidenote, (^foo)* is always useless to write, since (^foo) will } expand to the empty string, and then the * will consume anything else. Minor correction ... (^foo) will be the empty string only if the tested string begins with "foo". But then * will consume the "foo", making the (^foo) useless. Conversely if the string does not contain "foo" at all, (^foo) will consume all of it and * will match the empty string. However, (^foo)(*) could be very useful with backreferences, because (^foo) puts everything up to "foo" into $match[1], and then (*) puts from "foo" to the end into $match[2]. Which happens to be a lot like what Ray was trying to accomplish. } A useful way to think of (^foo) is a * that will exclude any matches } that don't match the pattern foo. Yes. There's a really long explanation of this in Etc/FAQ 3.27. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 5:05 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 5:28 ` Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 5:46 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh Users On Oct 15, 10:05pm, Bart Schaefer wrote: } } However, (^foo)(*) could be very useful with backreferences, because } (^foo) puts everything up to "foo" into $match[1], and then (*) puts } from "foo" to the end into $match[2]. And now I've got two problems instead of one. Because of course (^foo) matches "foobar" even though the latter has "foo" as a prefix. You need (^foo*) to do what I was describing, or (|^foo) which makes sense only if you either know very little about regular expressions or you realize that zsh prefers the leftmost of "|" alternatives over the longest of alternatives. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 5:28 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 5:46 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-16 5:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 10/15/2015 10:28 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Oct 15, 10:05pm, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } > } However, (^foo)(*) could be very useful with backreferences, because > } (^foo) puts everything up to "foo" into $match[1], and then (*) puts > } from "foo" to the end into $match[2]. > > And now I've got two problems instead of one. > > Because of course (^foo) matches "foobar" even though the latter has > "foo" as a prefix. You need (^foo*) to do what I was describing, or > (|^foo) which makes sense only if you either know very little about > regular expressions or you realize that zsh prefers the leftmost of > "|" alternatives over the longest of alternatives. > I can only guess what the parsing engine for this stuff looks like and what immortal wrote it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 4:11 ` backreferences Mikael Magnusson 2015-10-16 4:27 ` backreferences Kurtis Rader 2015-10-16 5:05 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 11:14 ` Peter Stephenson 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2015-10-16 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh Users On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 06:11:16 +0200 Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote: > As a sidenote, (^foo)* is always useless to write, since (^foo) will > expand to the empty string, and then the * will consume anything else. > A useful way to think of (^foo) is a * that will exclude any matches > that don't match the pattern foo. The warnings about the dangers of pattern matching elsewhere are useful, though it's perhaps worth pointing out here that if what you mean is a string of three characters that are not the characters f, o, o, zsh allows you to do exactly this: (???~foo) pws ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 2:30 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 4:11 ` backreferences Mikael Magnusson @ 2015-10-16 5:36 ` Ray Andrews 2015-10-16 12:35 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-16 5:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 10/15/2015 07:30 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Oct 15, 6:16pm, Ray Andrews wrote: > } Subject: Re: backreferences > } > } if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([(^(edcba))]*)(edcba)(*) ]]; > > Umm, no. But ... but ... it worked. So it works for the wrong reason then you say. Ok the right answer for the wrong reason could do a great deal of damage so thanks for rescuing me. > [(^(edcba))] is still a character class (open paren, caret, > e,d,c,b,a, close paren). Just (^(edcba)) without the square brackets. > And you have more parens then, so your $match[] indexes are wrong. > > if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)((^(edcba))*)(edcba)(*) ]] > > There are 5 sets of parens, and you care about $match[1], $match[4], > and $match[5]. $match[2] is the prefix of $match[1] that was not > consumed by the middle *, and $match[3] is an empty substring of > $match[2] (because it was excluded from matching). Count off the > open parens left to right to see this. At the moment I'm quite confounded. So '(b#)' is looking at every set of '()' even when nested and even when 'doing something else'? (That is to say even when they are doing other syntax work?) I may be doing something wrong but using the above my output is: one abcde two edcba three abcde four five > In fact you don't even need the middle * because (^edcba) will eat > an arbitrarily long string as long as it is not literally "edcba". Well, that's the original question. > So you can reduce this to > > if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)(^edcba)(edcba)(*) ]] > > and then you're back to only needing $match[1,3]. > God knows. But your simplified command works fine too, and I'll take it on faith. I've never seen any sort of 'any number of characters' sort of thing look other than: [....]* ... so you can see where I'd go astray there. Ok, so ^(edcba) is individual character matches and (^edcba) is anything up to "edcba" ... which is exactly what I wanted. Let's leave my other effort to the devil--I don't even want to understand it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 5:36 ` backreferences Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-16 12:35 ` Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 16:37 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On Oct 15, 10:36pm, Ray Andrews wrote: } } > if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)((^(edcba))*)(edcba)(*) ]] } > } > There are 5 sets of parens, and you care about $match[1], $match[4], } > and $match[5]. $match[2] is the prefix of $match[1] that was not } > consumed by the middle *, and $match[3] is an empty substring of } > $match[2] (because it was excluded from matching). Count off the } > open parens left to right to see this. } At the moment I'm quite confounded. So '(b#)' is looking at every set } of '()' even } when nested and even when 'doing something else'? Yes. } > In fact you don't even need the middle * because (^edcba) will eat } > an arbitrarily long string as long as it is not literally "edcba". } Well, that's the original question. As noted in my follow-up mail, what I wrote there is actually not right; the part after "because" is correct, but the part about not needing the middle * is wrong, because (^edcba) matches xxxxedcbaxxxx just fine, and I assume you don't want that. } > So you can reduce this to } > } > if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)(^edcba)(edcba)(*) ]] This needs to be (#b)(^edcba*)(edcba)(*) } God knows. But your simplified command works fine too, and I'll } take it on faith. I've never seen any sort of 'any number of characters' } sort of thing look other than: } [....]* No, now you're confusing grep-style regular expressions with zsh patterns. EGREP ZSH . ? .* * or ?# .+ ?## .? (?|) [xyz] [xyz] [xyz]* [xyz]# There's a lot more but those are the most important bits. } ... so you can see where I'd go astray there. Ok, so } ^(edcba) } is individual character matches and } (^edcba) } is anything up to "edcba" No. [^edcba] is individual character matches and (^edcba) is anything other than the literal string edcba, including longer strings that have edcba as a substring. Negated patterns are really tricky. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 12:35 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-16 16:37 ` Ray Andrews 2015-10-17 3:33 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-16 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 10/16/2015 05:35 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > } when nested and even when 'doing something else'? > > Yes. Ok, good to know. I've only been using backreferences since two days ago and up till now it's seemed that you had to add parentheses to create the reference and existing parentheses only had their existing syntax. I suppose this means that when you do have existing parentheses you'll get a 'match' whether you want one or not but so what, just ignore it. Yup, that's best. > ... but the part about not needing the > middle * is wrong, because (^edcba) matches xxxxedcbaxxxx just fine, and > I assume you don't want that. test2 () { match= sstring="abcdeedcbaabcde" # Bart doesn't like: #if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([(^(edcba))]*)(edcba)(*) ]]; # Bart likes: if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)(^edcba)(edcba)(*) ]]; then echo "\nIt's a poyfect match\n" fi echo "one $match[1]" echo "two $match[2]" echo "three $match[3]" echo "four $match[4]" echo "five $match[5]" } It's a poyfect match one abcde two edcba three abcde four five ... match[1] seems to agree with your previous interpretation, no? > This needs to be (#b)(^edcba*)(edcba)(*) That produces identical output as well, so what's the diff? Probably one of those things that blows up in your face one day ... > } God knows. But your simplified command works fine too, and I'll > } take it on faith. I've never seen any sort of 'any number of characters' > } sort of thing look other than: > } [....]* > > No, now you're confusing grep-style regular expressions with zsh patterns. ... which is what I meant to say. > EGREP ZSH > . ? > .* * or ?# > .+ ?## > .? (?|) > [xyz] [xyz] > [xyz]* [xyz]# > > There's a lot more but those are the most important bits. A table like that is worth tattooing onto one's arm. Seriously once a fella has learned a bit of regex it becomes burnt into the brain, and it's an act of deliberation to use the other syntax. It sorta makes it worse that they are similar :( Is a complete table available somewhere? > } ... so you can see where I'd go astray there. Ok, so > } ^(edcba) > } is individual character matches and > } (^edcba) > } is anything up to "edcba" > > No. [^edcba] is individual character matches and (^edcba) is anything > other than the literal string edcba, Ok, got it. A mortal's guide to this stuff would sure be useful. All the docs tend to dive right in to the deep end and immediately start explaining all the possible obscure permutations when KSH_GLOB is set and it's not leap year but it IS a Friday. Such control! But we start with the basics. > including longer strings that have > edcba as a substring. Negated patterns are really tricky. Na. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-16 16:37 ` backreferences Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-17 3:33 ` Bart Schaefer 2015-10-17 5:16 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-17 3:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ray Andrews; +Cc: Zsh Users On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote: > On 10/16/2015 05:35 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote: >> > test2 () > { > match= > sstring="abcdeedcbaabcde" > # Bart doesn't like: > #if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)([(^(edcba))]*)(edcba)(*) ]]; > # Bart likes: > if [[ "$sstring" = (#b)(^edcba)(edcba)(*) ]]; > > then > echo "\nIt's a poyfect match\n" > fi > > echo "one $match[1]" > echo "two $match[2]" > echo "three $match[3]" > echo "four $match[4]" > echo "five $match[5]" > } > > It's a poyfect match > > one abcde > two edcba > three abcde > four > five > > ... match[1] seems to agree with your previous interpretation, no? Only seems to. Try sstring="edcbaabcdeedcbaabcde" and I don't think you'll get the result you expected. >> This needs to be (#b)(^edcba*)(edcba)(*) > > That produces identical output as well, so what's the diff? Probably one of > those things that blows up in your face one day ... Something like that , yeah. >> EGREP ZSH > > Is a complete table available somewhere? There might be something in the Bash to Zsh book -- I don't have it handy to confirm. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: backreferences 2015-10-17 3:33 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer @ 2015-10-17 5:16 ` Ray Andrews 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ray Andrews @ 2015-10-17 5:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-users On 10/16/2015 08:33 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > Only seems to. Try sstring="edcbaabcdeedcbaabcde" and I don't think > you'll get the result you expected. Correct. It fails if the very start of the string is the negation, which seems strange. Any change at all to the 'bait' leading 'edcba' fixes it. The empty string is the intuitive expectation for match[1]. >>> This needs to be (#b)(^edcba*)(edcba)(*) ... and that does indeed seem to cover every situation that I've tried. Am I correct in reading the '*' as saying: "Anything OR NOTHING in front of 'edcba' "? That's not hard to fathom. Anyway I guess the difference is something that could be put to use in some conceivable situation. BTW does sed have that functionality? I did quite a bit of research and came up with nothing. Even at StackExchange no one had an answer, but it seems to me like a very fundamental sort of thing. Cool if zsh can do something that sed can't tho you'd hardly expect that to be the case. >> There might be something in the Bash to Zsh book -- I don't have it >> handy to confirm. Nope, nothing that I can find. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-10-17 5:46 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-10-15 18:28 backreferences Ray Andrews 2015-10-15 23:16 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 1:16 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 2015-10-16 2:30 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 4:11 ` backreferences Mikael Magnusson 2015-10-16 4:27 ` backreferences Kurtis Rader 2015-10-16 5:42 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 2015-10-16 5:05 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 5:28 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 5:46 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 2015-10-16 11:14 ` backreferences Peter Stephenson 2015-10-16 5:36 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 2015-10-16 12:35 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 2015-10-16 16:37 ` backreferences Ray Andrews 2015-10-17 3:33 ` backreferences Bart Schaefer 2015-10-17 5:16 ` backreferences 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).