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