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: <990129093143.ZM6847@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:31:43 -0800 In-Reply-To: <199901291337.OAA15219@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Comments: In reply to Sven Wischnowsky "PATCH: Re: Btw.: glob-qualifier" (Jan 29, 2:37pm) References: <199901291337.OAA15219@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.820 20aug96) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Btw.: glob-qualifier MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailing-List: 5112 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? (I'd ask about this on zsh-users first, though, just in case anybody is making some important use of the old undocumented `o'.) -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com