Re: _killall on linux

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com>]

On Jul 10,  9:13am, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: Re: _killall on linux
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} 
} > It's a bit weird that it's "processes-names" rather than "process-names".
} > (Was there some reason for that?
} 
} It doesn't have anything to do with real english -- it's just the tag
} used with some strings appended, to make it easier to remember them.

Aha.
 
} At least I thought it would be easier...

It's only easier that way if you know about the rule in advance (and if it
is applied consistently, which it may very well be, I haven't looked).  Is
it mentioned as a general principle anywhere in the docs?

} > [*] Rather than $( [[ "$UID" = 0 ]] && print -n xa ) I'd suggest the less
} > resource-intensive ${=EUID//(#s)0(#e)/ps xa}.
} 
} I wouldn't be agains that patch. But I think it raises the question if 
} we should add other default for some systems, such as -u$USER.

As it turns out, the _call to ps is already in a linux-specific section
of _killall, so the syntax for other variants of ps is irrelevant.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net