fish-users — General discussion list for fish users

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Ralph S. <ra...@ml...>]

* Matt Fellenz via Fish-users:

> Something that might be nice in this case is an alias to easily run a
> single bash command. That way you don't have to choose between fish or
> bash.

Bash is available on all machines I work with, because of Bash scripts
being so ubiquitous. Even with fish as one's login shell, it seems
simpler to me to enter an interactive Bash session than to come up with
ways to pass uninterpreted-by-fish arguments to "bash -c mumble".

> Not sure how that would work though, and if there is some way to
> create an alias that receives its arguments verbatim [...]

I think that, even if there were a "raw" version of $argv, calling a
function from an interactive fish session would imply that arguments are
subjected to globbing etc. before they are even passed to the function?
That seems like quite a hurdle. Easier to just use:

  fish$ bash
  bash$ rm [b-k]*
  bash$ ^D
  fish$ ... resume normal operations ...

Doing Bash things directly in Bash seems more reasonable to me than
getting tricksy with passing arguments. My whole motivation for opening
this thread was keeping things as simple as possible.

-Ralph

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Matt F. <ma...@fe...>]

> I agree, and I have already started my own collection of useful-to-me
> fish scripts which I sync across machines. I am not dismissing fish's
> abbreviations, functions, or custom scripts at all. This particular
> example is just a case where Bash has the advantage.

Something that might be nice in this case is an alias to easily run a single bash command. That way you don't have to choose between fish or bash. Not sure how that would work though, and if there is some way to create an alias that receives its arguments verbatim, i.e., without glob expansion and parameter substitution, so that you don't have to quote the command like `sh -c 'rm [b-k]*'`.

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Ralph S. <ra...@ml...>]

* Myrddin Emrys:

> [...] aliases, functions, and abbreviations are idiomatic fish in my
> opinion. One of its best features is the flexible ways its syntax can
> be extended.

I agree, and I have already started my own collection of useful-to-me
fish scripts which I sync across machines. I am not dismissing fish's
abbreviations, functions, or custom scripts at all. This particular
example is just a case where Bash has the advantage. Fish does many
things as well as, or better than, other shells, which is why I have
moved from Bash and Zsh to fish on every machine where circumstances
allow it.

I am also not complaining about fish at all. In this case, I'll just
stick to what I have known for decades (like "awk" or "find"), because
fish lacks a simpler, built-in approach. No harm, no foul.

-Ralph

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Myrddin E. <my...@gm...>]

That's fair, but aliases, functions, and abbreviations are idiomatic fish
in my opinion. One of its best features is the flexible ways its syntax can
be extended.

If you don't want to use it you don't have to. I understand the desire to
not be tied to customizations, especially if you tend to hop from box to
box. But characterizing those extension mechanisms as 'external commands or
scripts' is inaccurate, and dismissing them leaves some of the power of
fish underutilized.

On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 3:10 PM Ralph Seichter via Fish-users <
fis...@li...> wrote:

> * Myrddin Emrys:
>
> > function rmr [...]
>
> As I stated from the beginning, I want neither external commands nor
> scripts. That's easy to do in various ways, as the suggestions posted
> in this message thread demonstrate.
>
> I am explicitly (and only) looking for something idiomatic to fish, but
> as brief and effortless as the Bash version of "rm [b-k]*". There is no
> point in anything else, and apparently fish can't do it.
>
> -Ralph
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fish-users mailing list
> Fis...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
>

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Ralph S. <ra...@ml...>]

* Myrddin Emrys:

> function rmr [...]

As I stated from the beginning, I want neither external commands nor
scripts. That's easy to do in various ways, as the suggestions posted
in this message thread demonstrate.

I am explicitly (and only) looking for something idiomatic to fish, but
as brief and effortless as the Bash version of "rm [b-k]*". There is no
point in anything else, and apparently fish can't do it.

-Ralph

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Greg R. <gre...@um...>]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2026, at 11:02 AM, Ralph Seichter via Fish-users wrote:
> Having read about wildcards (1) and fish for Bash users (2), I wonder
> about the fish equivalent of calling `rm [b-k]*` in a Bash session.

For a non-fish solution, which would work with any shell, use find:
   find . -maxdepth 1 -iname '[b-k]*'
You can change "iname" to "name" to make it sensitive to case.  You can add "-type f" if you want only regular files.

The find command can used with command substitution:
   rm -iv (find . -maxdepth 1 -iname '[b-k]*')  # works in fish
or by itself:
   find . -maxdepth 1 -iname '[b-k]*' -execdir rm -iv '{}' '+'

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Alex C. <cha...@gm...>]

It's interesting why that many people insist on '.*$' to end their regexes;
isn't it generally implied?
'^[a-c].*' -> '^[a-c]'


On Sat, Oct 3, 2026 at 7:05 PM Myrddin Emrys <my...@gm...> wrote:

> I'm no expert in fish, even though it's my standard shell, but this feels
> like something you could customize with an alias.
>
> function rmr
>     if test (count $argv) -eq 0
>         echo "Usage: rmr <regex-pattern> [rm-flags]"
>         echo "Example: rmr '^[a-c].*'  # removes files starting with a, b,
> or c"
>         return 1
>     end
>     rm $argv[2..-1] (string match -r $argv[1] *)
> end
>
> Perhaps someone smarter than me could do it without requiring single
> quotes around the regex. You could probably also make some equivalent `rmg`
> variant by inserting some hellish Perl one-liner that converts glob syntax
> into regex.
> _______________________________________________
> Fish-users mailing list
> Fis...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
>

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Myrddin E. <my...@gm...>]

I'm no expert in fish, even though it's my standard shell, but this feels
like something you could customize with an alias.

function rmr
    if test (count $argv) -eq 0
        echo "Usage: rmr <regex-pattern> [rm-flags]"
        echo "Example: rmr '^[a-c].*'  # removes files starting with a, b,
or c"
        return 1
    end
    rm $argv[2..-1] (string match -r $argv[1] *)
end

Perhaps someone smarter than me could do it without requiring single quotes
around the regex. You could probably also make some equivalent `rmg`
variant by inserting some hellish Perl one-liner that converts glob syntax
into regex.

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Ralph S. <ra...@ml...>]

* paul:

> fish does indeed not have the […]-globs.

So it's not just a lack of search-fu. Bummer.

> I didn't even know Bash had those, and tbh I'm not convinced they are
> that useful, since they only match one char.

They have frequently proven useful to me. For more complex tasks awk,
find, sed, xargs et al exist, but as "rm [b-k]*" shows, Bash globbing
can be enough.

> The only fish-native commands that supports regex is `string`, so the
> shortest fish-only equivalent would probably be
> `rm (string match -r '^[b-k].*' *)`

This has been suggested to me off-list as well. At least "string" is a
fish builtin, but it still feels too elaborate. "find -regex ..." would
work, but like I wrote, I'd rather avoid using additional commands if
simpler options exist.

Well, if that's a known fish weakness, I'll have to live with it. Fish
has many strengths to make up for it. I mostly wanted to rule out having
missed some obvious solution.

-Ralph

Re: [Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[paul <pl....@gm...>]

Hallo Ralph,

Am 03.10.26 um 13:02 schrieb Ralph Seichter via Fish-users:
> I wonder about the fish equivalent of calling `rm [b-k]*` in a Bash session.
fish does indeed not have the […]-globs.
I didn't even know Bash had those, and tbh I'm not convinced they are that useful, since they only match one char. For anything more complex than the * or ** globs I'd indeed use `find` or `fd` (a modern alternative to find with a much more intuitive syntax, see [2]).

The only fish-native commands that supports regex is `string`, so the shortest fish-only equivalent would probably be
`rm (string match -r '^[b-k].*' *)`
Note that this is full regex syntax, so it needs the ^ for start of the string. You can combine that with `path filter` if you want to filter out directories or symlinks.

Alternatively, Fish also supports {}-brace expansion, so you could write
`rm {b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k}*`
– more repetitive, but maybe even faster to type (and less to think about).


Most missing Bashisms can be worked around with the builtin commands [1]; especially `string`, `path` and `math` are incredibly useful, as is the builtin argparse.

paul

[1] https://fishshell.com/docs/current/commands.html#tools
[2] https://github.com/sharkdp/fd
-- 
√ https://wurzel.org
❤ https://neo-layout.org
❤ https://useplaintext.email
❤ YYYY-MM-DD (ISO 8601/RFC 3339)
� UTF-8
☠ please don't TOFU! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

[Fish-users] Wildcards and ranges, am I missing something?

[Ralph S. <ra...@ml...>]

Having read about wildcards (1) and fish for Bash users (2), I wonder
about the fish equivalent of calling `rm [b-k]*` in a Bash session.

Removing all files with names starting with the letters 'b' through 'k'
using one short call is a breeze in Bash. How to do the same using fish
builtins, without invoking additional commands like `find`, or writing
scripts?

(1) https://fishshell.com/docs/current/language.html#expand-wildcard
(2) https://fishshell.com/docs/current/fish_for_bash_users.html

-Ralph

[Fish-users] 88x31

[pnppl <pnp...@gm...>]

If you have a personal website and want to share your love of fish on it, I've made a badge/button in the classic 88x31 pixel format that is experiencing a revival.

Animated:
<https://pnppl.cc/public/badges/fish.gif>

Static:
<https://pnppl.cc/public/badges/fish-static.gif>

[Fish-users] Get containing folder

[Bobby <pnp...@gm...>]

Hi, just wanted to share a very simple but helpful function. It returns the parent folder of the given argument/pipe.

function folder
  if ! isatty stdin
    cat - | read -at argv
  end
  for file in $argv
    echo (path resolve $file | path dirname | string split '/')[-1]
  end
end

Note that you might want to remove the `resolve` part depending on your use case. For me it is more useful like this since I use it to rename files and I never need to name anything `.` .

I think `path` is one of the best things about Fish; it makes this kind of operation very easy. Even so, there was no convenient way that I could find to get only the containing folder, not the entire path. Now there is! :) 

[Fish-users] fish shell apt repositories key upgrade

[David A. <za...@uc...>]

Hi all,

The fish-shell repositories at download.opensuse.org have been producing 
warnings on newer versions of apt in Debian, because of a couple of 
problems with the Open Build Service signing mechanisms.

These have now been fixed but everyone will need to re-download the key 
as it has been re-signed and the expiry extended.

Please use something like:
curl -fsSL https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/shells:fish:release:4/Debian_13/Release.key | gpg --dearmor | sudo tee /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/shells_fish_release_4.gpg > /dev/null

There is some discussion in the issue at GitHub: 
https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/issues/11986

Thanks,

David Adam
fish committer
za...@uc...

[Fish-users] fish 4.1.0 released

[Johannes A. <ac...@gm...>]

See https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/releases/tag/4.1.0
I can send a plaintext version of that changelog but I'd imagine
that's less useful than a version with clickable links

[Fish-users] fish 4.0.8 released

[Johannes A. <ac...@gm...>]

See https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/releases/tag/4.0.8

[Fish-users] fish 4.0.6 released

[Johannes A. <ac...@gm...>]

See https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/releases/tag/4.0.6

[Fish-users] fish 4.0.2 released

[David A. <za...@uc...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi all,

I'm pleased to announce the release of fish 4.0.2. This is a bugfix
release for fish 4.0.0, which it appears I never actually announced on
the list - the message was signed and ready to go, but still in my
drafts.

Here's the announcement from that message:

> This release of fish features significant improvements in terminal
> support which allow the use of many more key combinations, and a better
> way of binding these combinations. There is also a new way to control
> whether commands are added to the history, and a number of other new
> features.
>
> There are a number of backward-incompatible changes, hence the increase
> in the major version number. It is more important than ever to read the
> release notes - see below!
>
> The internals of fish have been rewritten from C++ to Rust, which has
> generated a lot of interest and publicity, but should only directly
> impact developers and packagers.

The tarball and packages for Linux, macOS and Windows will soon be 
available from https://fishshell.com/ and the release notes will be at 
https://fishshell.com/release_notes.html - but in the meantime I have 
uploaded the release to the GitHub releases page at:
  https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/releases/tag/4.0.2

As a new major version, there is a new release:4 channel, so to receive
the newest Linux packages you may need to update your configuration.  If
you'd like to use this method, the links are:
  https://launchpad.net/~fish-shell/+archive/ubuntu/release-4 (Ubuntu)
  https://software.opensuse.org//download.html?project=shells%3Afish%3Arelease%4A3&package=fish
  (Debian, Fedora, and openSUSE)

A pull request for Homebrew has been merged, making the new version
available via upgrading or running `brew install fish`.

For our distributors, the tarball is available at
https://github.com/fish-shell/fish-shell/releases/download/4.0.2/fish-4.0.2.tar.xz
The SHA-256 sum is
6e1ecdb164285fc057b2f35acbdc20815c1623099e7bb47bbfc011120adf7e83 and the
tarball has a signature from my personal PGP key, as does this message.

It's my pleasure to welcome the huge number of new contributors who have
commits in the tree since 3.7.0:

  Abdo Omar, Abel Chalier, Alexei Mikhailov, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant,
  Andrew Neth, Anurag Singh, Armin Brauns, Bartłomiej Maryńczak,
  BrewingWeasel, César Sagaert, ClaXXX, Clemens Wasser, Daniel
  Fleischer, Demian Ferreiro, Dezhi Wu, EmilyGraceSeville7cf, Francois
  Laithier, Giorgio Gallo, Grant Hutchins, Harmen, Hauke Strasdat,
  Himadri Bhattacharjee, Jacob Chapman, Jadi, Jasmin Oster, Jean-Bernard
  Valentaten, Joan Bruguera Micó, Joe Adams, John, Jonathan Krebs, Josef
  Litoš, Kaley Main, Kemel Zaidan, Kendell R, Kerim, Klaus Hipp,
  Laurențiu Nicola, LingMan, Looouiiis, Lucas Garron, Lzu Tao, Manlio
  Perillo, Manuel Krebs, Max Jacobson, Michal Koutný, Munzir Taha, Nadir
  Fejzic, Neeraj Jaiswal, Nguyen Huu Kim, Nihaal Sangha, Nikita Bobko,
  Peter Yates, Pi-Cla, PolyMeilex, Rebecca Turner, Rikuki IX,
  RomainGiraud, Ryan Patterson, Sam Bull, Samuel Collins, Schlomo
  Schapiro, Septatrix, Shaik Azhar Madar, Shou Ya, Simon Junod, Steve
  Walker, TAKAHASHI Shuuji, Thayne McCombs, Theodor Tonum, Theodore
  Ehrenborg, Thomas Queiroz, Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy, Unbelievable
  Mystery, Verte, Victor Song, Yonas Yanfa, Zapeth, a-kenji, ahaoboy,
  amiyzku, bitraid, cornmander, diniamo, esdmr, fossdd, hdhoang,
  idealseal, iselda aiello, kerty, kpbaks, metamuffin, phanium, tesuji,
  triallax, visrosa, vp2177, yinm, and 王宇逸

Thanks also go to our returning contributors:

  Adam J. Stewart, Agatha Lovelace, Akatsuki Rui, Alex Chan, Amos Bird,
  Amy Grace, Andre Eckardt, Andy Hall, Asuka Minato, AsukaMinato,
  Axlefublr, Benjamin Kellermann, Branch Vincent, Charlotte, Chris
  Wendt, Christian Fersch, Colin Woodbury, Damien Picard, Daniel Bretoi,
  Daniel Kahn Gillmor, Delapouite, Dmitriy Shishkov, Dmitry Gerasimov,
  Eddie Lebow, Emily Grace Seville, Eric N. Vander Weele, Fabian Boehm,
  Felix Luciano Salomon, Florian Meißner, Gabriel Górski, Gregory
  Anders, Grzegorz Milka, Henrik Hørlück Berg, Husam Harazi, Ian
  Chamberlain, Ikko Eltociear Ashimine, Ilya Grigoriev, Ivan Kovnatsky,
  Jan Tojnar, Jannik Vieten, Jason Nader, Jay, Jo, Johannes
  Altmanninger, Johannes Stölp, Kevin  F. Konrad, Kevin Cali, Kevin F.
  Konrad, Kid, Lia Lenckowski, Mahmoud Al-Qudsi, Marcelo Mendes Spessoto
  Junior, Marcin Wojnarowski, Mark Huang, Mathijs Henquet, Mathis
  Chenuet, Maurizio De Santis, Miha Filej, Nater0214, Nethum Lamahewage,
  NextAlone, Nicholas Rodrigues Lordello, Nunzio Cicone, Oliver Schrenk,
  Paiusco, Paul Gier, Paul Ouellette, Pavel savchenko, Paweł Piątkowski,
  Peter Collingbourne, QianChenglong, Quinten Roets, Robert Szulist,
  Rocka, Roland Fredenhagen, Rudolf Lovrenčić, SanskritFritz, Shun
  Sakai, Simon Börjesson, The0x539, Thomas Klausner, Wadii Hajji, Wenhao
  Ho, Wolfgang Müller, Wout De Puysseleir, Xiretza, Yuntao Zhao, Zehka,
  abp, bagohart, elyashiv, exploide, figurantpp, fortifiedhill,
  ghostflyby, jydeng, lengyijun, matt wartell, mattmc3, may, mhmdanas,
  nat-418, pd, rymrg, sigmaSd, tangowithfoxtrot, yanshay, ysthakur,
  zuisong, and the brains of the entire operation, ridiculousfish.

It may be a little Rusty, but we hope you enjoy this release of fish.

Thanks,

David Adam
fish committer
za...@uc...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEnh3gZzzMAykZ0YUmwLlpspdOiI4FAmgFEBkACgkQwLlpspdO
iI7A5g//bLW2YBOz1LQfmgH1TcQh2heVPwadyw3Pkvxf1lToR9irRP7Oq9WZYCgz
hH3zn2Iljatrsvn03OR+OVyoFo9ZE9Wixi5opw6wtpWBVHY9OstFuTV2RbHL79s+
Ch0fXNiTkgoSaSe2s+JY9OTeVQcy9GxYzB17JpqgmNgepzLBQqSvbnA5ejc0tNES
lEvSfNw8Fyj8blCvos4irxF/mdYUXyYhWzaSBnb3F9uLDEFbuWxh4Ha8JYdN9Yaw
jecIgtw44ecOPCzrGNbGguH/JjfGGcVXHK3Jac49mt4cmAu2AgGUM60p4pn+wgv/
ad+NqrSOgsYOFm6ZJdise/My2eDrUYGYimZG3tLnr33DrW4rXda2eJNgXXyxbOka
Ys4ID3PvYiEXk1pXMYxJFIBJcuudpw7mkdmjvRdvEbO+SPM8QRj9ga32Ao2Z4pKM
ME1AVVw8cLFiMtgFKoiEnl2+iLZvvp283isGjCkCma77PbFC+ozeUwaEZaMyZCoy
OzSBzhNG5TAnsvgDT7a2zH+LI0WveN2a7UWA+C1YR/TAASTZCJTECBSwLnutrI/D
ROs3aYx5t1B1JHHIlcX9S96cyahfGn6haJrXnjaaksjLxYgyrQNFS7fG7ye8PlM2
mT4Q+bIlYNrq5z6lJlZPDHqEUz0AviODAGYMTUF7YYjlpzNdg3I=
=/aLn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [Fish-users] functions or abbreviations ?

[Manfred L. <man...@po...>]

Hi Xavier,

On 1/7/25 19:46, Xavier Maillard wrote:
> Hello
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> I am a new fish user trying to figure out all the concepts and features.
> 
> I browse many github repositories to get some inspiration.
> 
> Many people seems to mixup abbreviations and functions. I mean, some functi=
> ons could have been abbreviations.
> 

For me it is like this.

For the simple stuff I use aliases.

Here some examples

```
alias lsbig "ls -s size -l | tail -n 10"

...

if command -sq dnf
    alias dnfs="dnf search"
    alias dnfi="sudo dnf install"
    alias dnfr="sudo dnf remove"
    alias dnfl="sudo dnf list"
    alias dnfu="sudo dnf upgrade"
    alias dnfli="sudo dnf list installed"
    alias dnfc="sudo dnf clean all"
    alias dnfgi="sudo dnf groupinstall"
    alias dnfgl="sudo dnf grouplist"
    alias dnfgr="sudo dnf groupremove"
end

```

For more complex stuff I use functions

Examples

```
function mkcd
  set -l newdir $argv[1]
  mkdir -p $newdir
  cd $newdir
end
```

```
# quick way to show number of files, dirs and symlinks
# in a directory tree
function filestat
    set -l start_dir $argv[1]
    if [ -z $start_dir ]
        set start_dir  '.'
    end

    set -l numf (find $start_dir -type f | wc -l)
    set -l numd (find $start_dir -type d | wc -l)
    set -l numl (find $start_dir -type l | wc -l)

    echo "#dirs=$numd, #files=$numf, #links=$numl"
end
```

I use abbreviations only for stuff like this

```
abbr --add --position anywhere G '| grep'
```

Here I can type, for example: `ls -l G` and a blank and it gets expanded to
   `ls -l | grep`


But your mileage may vary. 😁

-- 
Manfred

Re: [Fish-users] functions or abbreviations ?

[Xavier M. <x...@ma...>]

Rens Oliemans <ha...@re...> wrote:
> "Xavier Maillard" <x...@ma...> writes:
> 
> > I just need to understand how things should be done.
> 
> Try things out, and get a feel for your preference: the docs describe three ways
> of doing it and I don't think that there are very clear ways of how it "should"
> be done.

Actually, that's my conclusion too. Just that, AFAICS, only functions can be exploited to do complex things. Right ?
-- 
 -Xavier

Re: [Fish-users] functions or abbreviations ?

[Rens O. <ha...@re...>]

"Xavier Maillard" <x...@ma...> writes:

> I just need to understand how things should be done.

Try things out, and get a feel for your preference: the docs describe three ways
of doing it and I don't think that there are very clear ways of how it "should"
be done.

Using 'function' has two caveats that 'alias' fixes (and 'abbr' doesn't have),
so preferring alias/abbr over function would be my advice, but that's also my
preference: if you like the explicitness of function, go for it.

Re: [Fish-users] functions or abbreviations ?

[Xavier M. <x...@ma...>]

Rens Oliemans <ha...@re...> wrote:
> "Xavier Maillard" <x...@ma...> writes:
> 
> > I am a new fish user trying to figure out all the concepts and features.
> 
> Welcome! I'm also a somewhat new fish user, but here's what I use--you can find
> my dotfiles at
> https://git.sr.ht/~rensoliemans/dotfiles/tree/main/item/fish/dot-config/fish
> 
Thank you very much for sharing this with me.

Things become clearer as I progress in my discovery and reading of the documentation.
-- 
 -Xavier

Re: [Fish-users] functions or abbreviations ?

[Xavier M. <x...@ma...>]

Hello,
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

makes sense. I plan migrating some scripts I am currently using in zsh as f=
ish functions/scripts.
Notably, I am using mblaze for my mails and I am pretty sure many things I =
am doing today with complex scripts could be done as a fish flugin with fun=
ctions, abrreviations and completions.
I just need to understand how things should be done.

--=20
 -Xavier

Re: [Fish-users] functions or abbreviations ?

[Greg R. <gre...@um...>]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2025, at 9:42 PM, Xavier Maillard wrote:
> I already have read that. My question was really this one: is it fine 
> to use ‘function’ as a mean to define what could have been a simple 
> abbreviation.
>
> For example:
>
> function wget --description 'alias wget=wget 
> --hsts-file="$XDG_DATA_HOME/wget-hsts"'
>     command wget --hsts-file="$XDG_DATA_HOME/wget-hsts" $argv
> end
>
> Or
>
> abbr -a wget 'wget --hsts-file="$XDG_DATA_HOME/wget-hsts"’ 
>
> Which one is okay/preferred ?

I think that they are both okay.  I think the preference is for you to decide.  I think that the documentation that I mentioned at https://fishshell.com/docs/current/interactive.html#abbreviations explains the difference:
"The advantage [of abbreviations] over aliases [and functions] is that you can see the actual command before using it, add to it or change it, and the actual command will be stored in history."  If you want that feature, use an abbreviation.  If you don't want that feature, use an alias/function.  If you don't care then you don't care.

Re: [Fish-users] functions or abbreviations ?

[Xavier M. <x...@ma...>]

Hello,

> Le 7 janv. 2025 à 21:06, Greg Reagle <gre...@um...> a écrit :
> 
> You might be interested in abbreviations which has a man page called abbr, or see   https://fishshell.com/docs/current/interactive.html#abbreviations
> 
> The man page for alias notes that it is a wrapper for functions.  See https://fishshell.com/docs/current/language.html#defining-aliases

I already have read that. My question was really this one: is it fine to use ‘function’ as a mean to define what could have been a simple abbreviation.

For example:

function wget --description 'alias wget=wget --hsts-file="$XDG_DATA_HOME/wget-hsts"'
    command wget --hsts-file="$XDG_DATA_HOME/wget-hsts" $argv
end

Or

abbr -a wget 'wget --hsts-file="$XDG_DATA_HOME/wget-hsts"’ 

Which one is okay/preferred ?

Thank you