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 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <990127213530.ZM31239@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:35:29 -0800 In-Reply-To: <199901261102.MAA20746@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "Btw.: glob-qualifier" (Jan 26, 12:02pm) References: <199901261102.MAA20746@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: Sven Wischnowsky , zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Btw.: glob-qualifier MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailing-List: 5075 On Jan 26, 12:02pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote: } Subject: Btw.: glob-qualifier } } effect of `(o)' is to match only files whose modes (all twelve } bits) exactly match `'. Shouldn't we either document this or } first make it a bit more usable and then document it? Yes. } E.g. we could } make it take the next four characters which should be octal digits } or `.'s, where `.' means that in this three-bit group any value is } accepted Oof. If you're going to make it usable, then REALLY make it usable. At the risk of further abusing the already over-used parentheses, how about (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. While I'm on the subject, why do we still have to use *numeric* group and user IDs for the u and g qualifiers? Useless for portable scripts, except possibly for (u0). (I know, I know, it's slow and unpleasant to do passwd and groups file lookups, and it's undefined what to do for names that don't exist. Grumble.) -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com