From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 09:21:37 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199902010821.JAA02870@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
From: Sven Wischnowsky <wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk
In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:31:43 -0800
Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Btw.: glob-qualifier
X-Mailing-List: <zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk> 5140


Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Jan 29,  2:37pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> } Subject: PATCH: Re: Btw.: glob-qualifier
> }
> } > [...] (o(ug=w,o+r)) for "user and group must have exactly the write
> } > bit set, and other must have at least r" and (o(u+x,go-w)) for "user
> } > must have at least the execute bit set, and group and other must not
> } > have write" and so on.
> } 
> } The patch below implements this (with a few extras).
> 
> Nifty!  Now I only have one question ... is there another, better letter
> than `o' that could be adopted (since the mode is no longer `o'ctal),
> thus giving us both o and O for ascending/descending sorts, as in the
> parameter flags?

(...and print.) Yes, I wanted to do it in exactly this way, when I
discovered the old `o' modifier. I also thought about altering the
name of the `o' modifier.

This would also reverse the meaning of the `O' qualifier.

But since `o' wasn't documented and `O' is new, it hopefully wouldn't
cause too much trouble.

> (I'd ask about this on zsh-users first, though, just in case anybody is
> making some important use of the old undocumented `o'.)

Ok.

Bye
 Sven


--
Sven Wischnowsky                         wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de