From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13454 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 09:43:45 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 09:43:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 11149 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2000 09:43:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12210 Received: (qmail 11142 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 09:43:34 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:43:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200007100943.LAA18552@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:31:03 +0000 Subject: Re: _killall on linux Bart Schaefer wrote: > ... > > } 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? Well, the docs mention the processes and processes-list tags for the command style (as examples). The processes-names is listed together with processes and processes-list in the tag list, of course, and processes seems to be the only case where we needed to call _call more than once for a given tag. > } > [*] 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. Ah. Sorry. I was looking at _pids. Well, then... Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de