There are two features I've often wished for in my shell (ksh) and am
wondering if any other shell has them.

(1) Due to finger-fumbles I often type just "/some/dir" when I meant
'cd /some/dir" or "pushd /some/dir", which results in the error message
"/some/dir: cannot execute". Since the idea of executing a directory is
clearly preposterous, why can't the shell interpret this as a cd (or
pushd) request?

(2) Similarly, I sometimes type "file" instead of "vi file". But why
can't the shell be configurable to run "$EDITOR file" in that case iff
the file exists as named? Yes, it does have an icky Windows-ish feeling
but that doesn't mean it couldn't be useful. This one I've sort-of
implemented with a "trap ... ERR" hack in the past but it wasn't ideal
for reasons I no longer remember.

Of course either of these could be configurable by a "set -o" flag. So:
do any shells (bash, zsh, etc) offer these and if not, what's the
argument against them?

Thanks,
HT

2006-12-06, 11:19(-05), Henry Townsend:
> There are two features I've often wished for in my shell (ksh) and am
> wondering if any other shell has them.
>
> (1) Due to finger-fumbles I often type just "/some/dir" when I meant
> 'cd /some/dir" or "pushd /some/dir", which results in the error message
> "/some/dir: cannot execute". Since the idea of executing a directory is
> clearly preposterous, why can't the shell interpret this as a cd (or
> pushd) request?

zsh can do that.

setopt autocd autopushd

AUTO_CD (-J)
If a command is issued that can't be executed as a normal command,
and the command is the name of a directory, perform the cd command
to that directory.

AUTO_PUSHD (-N)
Make cd push the old directory onto the directory stack.


> (2) Similarly, I sometimes type "file" instead of "vi file". But why
> can't the shell be configurable to run "$EDITOR file" in that case iff
> the file exists as named? Yes, it does have an icky Windows-ish feeling
> but that doesn't mean it couldn't be useful. This one I've sort-of
> implemented with a "trap ... ERR" hack in the past but it wasn't ideal
> for reasons I no longer remember.
[...]

I wouldn't do that, as it could be dangerous.

But it's possible with zsh as well

alias -s pdf=acroread
alias -s c=vi

runs acroread for pdf files and vi for c files.

You can also add a trap on ZERR or use a TRAPZERR function (some
systems have SIGERR signal, hence ZERR instead of ERR).

--
Stéphane

"Henry Townsend" <henry.townsend@not.here> wrote in message
news:84SdnSHoou0pcOvYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> There are two features I've often wished for in my shell (ksh) and am
> wondering if any other shell has them.
> (2) Similarly, I sometimes type "file" instead of "vi file". But why can't
> the shell be configurable to run "$EDITOR file" in that case iff the file
> exists as named? Yes, it does have an icky Windows-ish feeling but that
> doesn't mean it couldn't be useful. This one I've sort-of implemented with
> a "trap ... ERR" hack in the past but it wasn't ideal for reasons I no
> longer remember.

What if file is an executable that you want to run, or were you only
refererring to files without execute permission set?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Tintin" <tintin@invalid.invalid> writes:

> "Henry Townsend" <henry.townsend@not.here> wrote in message
> news:84SdnSHoou0pcOvYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> There are two features I've often wished for in my shell (ksh) and am
>> wondering if any other shell has them.
>> (2) Similarly, I sometimes type "file" instead of "vi file". But why can't
>> the shell be configurable to run "$EDITOR file" in that case iff the file
>> exists as named? Yes, it does have an icky Windows-ish feeling but that
>> doesn't mean it couldn't be useful. This one I've sort-of implemented with
>> a "trap ... ERR" hack in the past but it wasn't ideal for reasons I no
>> longer remember.
>
> What if file is an executable that you want to run, or were you only
> refererring to files without execute permission set?


And what if you want to edit a file that was the name of a command?
Or edit a file with the name of your editor?

Or the file is 2GB, and calling up the editor causes the system to
s l o o w d o o o n.



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Tintin wrote:
> "Henry Townsend" <henry.townsend@not.here> wrote in message
> news:84SdnSHoou0pcOvYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> There are two features I've often wished for in my shell (ksh) and am
>> wondering if any other shell has them.
>> (2) Similarly, I sometimes type "file" instead of "vi file". But why can't
>> the shell be configurable to run "$EDITOR file" in that case iff the file
>> exists as named? Yes, it does have an icky Windows-ish feeling but that
>> doesn't mean it couldn't be useful. This one I've sort-of implemented with
>> a "trap ... ERR" hack in the past but it wasn't ideal for reasons I no
>> longer remember.
>
> What if file is an executable that you want to run, or were you only
> refererring to files without execute permission set?

Well, in my case I *never* have "." in PATH and thus would never type
"command" expecting ./command to be run. But yes, I should have made it
clearer; I'd expect the shell to invoke $EDITOR iff (a) the exec search
failed and (b) the file exists and is readable at its named location,
i.e. access(file, F_OK) succeeds.

Bruce Barnett wrote:
> And what if you want to edit a file that was the name of a command?
> Or edit a file with the name of your editor?

Addressed in parallel response.

> Or the file is 2GB, and calling up the editor causes the system to
> s l o o w d o o o n.

Two answers:

1. Ctrl-C.

2. I did say it should be configurable. Every option comes with a reason
someone might not want it; that's why it's an option.

HT

Henry Townsend wrote:
>the file exists and is readable at its named location,

Or, arguably, writable.

In article <84SdnSHoou0pcOvYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Henry Townsend <henry.townsend@not.here> wrote:

> There are two features I've often wished for in my shell (ksh) and am
> wondering if any other shell has them.
>
> (1) Due to finger-fumbles I often type just "/some/dir" when I meant
> 'cd /some/dir" or "pushd /some/dir", which results in the error message
> "/some/dir: cannot execute". Since the idea of executing a directory is
> clearly preposterous, why can't the shell interpret this as a cd (or
> pushd) request?

It's also likely that this was a typo for

/some/dir/filename

>
> (2) Similarly, I sometimes type "file" instead of "vi file". But why
> can't the shell be configurable to run "$EDITOR file" in that case iff
> the file exists as named? Yes, it does have an icky Windows-ish feeling
> but that doesn't mean it couldn't be useful. This one I've sort-of
> implemented with a "trap ... ERR" hack in the past but it wasn't ideal
> for reasons I no longer remember.

How long have you been using Unix? I ask this because I think that
after a while these commands become second nature. I expect that it's
only when you're first starting that you make silly mistakes like this,
and these shortcuts would just perpetuate the bad habits.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Barry Margolin wrote:
> It's also likely that this was a typo for
>
> /some/dir/filename

Yes. Sorry.

> How long have you been using Unix? I ask this because I think that
> after a while these commands become second nature. I expect that it's
> only when you're first starting that you make silly mistakes like this,
> and these shortcuts would just perpetuate the bad habits.

It's not a matter of familiarity but one of typing. I'm a terrible
typist, which means I'm a heavy user of command-line editing, and
somehow my fingers tend to fumble and I mangle a line in the ways described.

HT

Henry Townsend <henry.townsend@not.here> writes:

> It's not a matter of familiarity but one of typing. I'm a terrible
> typist, which means I'm a heavy user of command-line editing, and
> somehow my fingers tend to fumble and I mangle a line in the ways
> described.

I tend to create aliases/functions/symbolic links and
shortcuts to make my life easier.

So if I want to go to a /some/place/far/away/directory a short 1, 2 or 3
letter command will do so.


But I prefer some predictability and dislike surprises when I make a
typing error. For instance, suppose I dropped a character, unknowingly
changed directory, and executed a program I did not want to execute.
If I ran the production version versus a test version - it could have
nasty consequences.

Or if a command is modal - where it behaves differently
based on the state of some external object. I wouldn't personally like that.

But if you want to - fine.

It would be easy to make up a single character command that checks the
argument and does different things based on the type of argument.

If a directory - go to it
if a text file - edit it
If an executable - based on the name/table
run it in the background
run it immediately
run it in a new window




--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Henry Townsend <henry.townsend@not.here> contributed wisdom to
news:84SdnSHoou0pcOvYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com:

> There are two features I've often wished for in my shell (ksh) and am
> wondering if any other shell has them.
>
> (1) Due to finger-fumbles I often type just "/some/dir" when I meant
> 'cd /some/dir" or "pushd /some/dir", which results in the error message
> "/some/dir: cannot execute". Since the idea of executing a directory is
> clearly preposterous, why can't the shell interpret this as a cd (or
> pushd) request?

It would be abit hard for the system to tell. So each command line needs
to know that you werent preceding a directory to a command or checking
for existence of a file vs directory. Or maybe the error could catch it.
That would take care of the first example anyway.

> (2) Similarly, I sometimes type "file" instead of "vi file". But why
> can't the shell be configurable to run "$EDITOR file" in that case iff
> the file exists as named? Yes, it does have an icky Windows-ish feeling
> but that doesn't mean it couldn't be useful. This one I've sort-of
> implemented with a "trap ... ERR" hack in the past but it wasn't ideal
> for reasons I no longer remember.

Default file handlers like Windows has? That allows some of the invasion
techniques that windows has problems with. Is this worth that?

Gandalf Parker

2006-12-07, 07:05(-05), Henry Townsend:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
>> It's also likely that this was a typo for
>>
>> /some/dir/filename
>
> Yes. Sorry.
>
>> How long have you been using Unix? I ask this because I think that
>> after a while these commands become second nature. I expect that it's
>> only when you're first starting that you make silly mistakes like this,
>> and these shortcuts would just perpetuate the bad habits.
>
> It's not a matter of familiarity but one of typing. I'm a terrible
> typist, which means I'm a heavy user of command-line editing, and
> somehow my fingers tend to fumble and I mangle a line in the ways described.
[...]

In addition to you two requests, zsh can also suggest (or
immediately correct) corrections to what you type.

That's part of the completion system.

If you type:

vi /etc/pasw<Tab>

zsh can propose you to complete that to /etc/passwd.

Run:

autoload compinstall
compinstall

one of the menus is about approximate completion.

--
Stéphane

In article <GOydnWSwF5jsnuXYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Henry Townsend <henry.townsend@not.here> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > It's also likely that this was a typo for
> >
> > /some/dir/filename
>
> Yes. Sorry.
>
> > How long have you been using Unix? I ask this because I think that
> > after a while these commands become second nature. I expect that it's
> > only when you're first starting that you make silly mistakes like this,
> > and these shortcuts would just perpetuate the bad habits.
>
> It's not a matter of familiarity but one of typing. I'm a terrible
> typist, which means I'm a heavy user of command-line editing, and
> somehow my fingers tend to fumble and I mangle a line in the ways described.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my theory is that even a bad typist will develop
habits from the commands they type frequently, and you're much less
likely to make typoes in these habitual sequences.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***