241–250 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it doesn't, ctrl-z only suspends process and switches to backgroud - the thing is still alive try ctrl-z and then type bg command - you will see a list, you can resume with fg [number]
Well, it might still run but it lets you out of the editor, which is the goal here. You can just kill -9 it afterwards.
I'm afraid they'll manage to launch vim and will never be able to get out.
My "favorite" thing is when you hit Ctrl-C, and Vim says "Type :quit to exit Vim". Vim isn't dumb. It knows what Ctrl-C means, it knows what you wanted to happen. But it's gonna make you do it its way anyway, because fuck you.
:'a,'b!longrunningcommand
C-cEarlier quoted context omitted.
My "favorite" thing is when you hit Ctrl-C, and Vim says "Type :quit to exit Vim". Vim isn't dumb. It knows what Ctrl-C means, it knows what you wanted to happen. But it's gonna make you do it its way anyway, because fuck you.
Actually, that's a feature... Ctrl-C exits insert mode. If it quit vim when in Normal mode, you'd accidentally quit Vim all the time. Less annoying to just show a helpful message in case you actually meant quit, than dump everyone who knows what Ctrl-C does back to a shell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you set the interval to the minimum possible, there is no upper bound on how long it may take to complete, or indeed, any guarantee that it will complete. In this case it doesn't matter, but I point this out because I've seen people trying to use this sort of logic in places where it does matter in the last three months.
If they'd just switched it to greater than and used a unix timestamp...
[ $(date +%s) -ge $(date +%s -d"Sat Oct 31 16:00:00 EDT 2015") ]Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you set the interval to the minimum possible, there is no upper bound on how long it may take to complete, or indeed, any guarantee that it will complete. In this case it doesn't matter, but I point this out because I've seen people trying to use this sort of logic in places where it does matter in the last three months.
You're talking about `sleep` specifically here, right? Or general use of timers/polling for flow control?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you know if it did?
You may already have figured this out, but just incase anyone is wondering what the potential problem here is... If it doesn't wake up and run the date command in a certain timeframe then this while loops will run forever. The chances of that happening, while greater than zero, are really small though. It'd be something like the loop checks the time at "15:59:59", doesn't match so it goes to sleep just a few millisec…
It's not a busy-wait. What matters is not CPU clock ticks, but how quickly an eligible-to-run program gets scheduled. That's still not going to be terribly long, of course.
But ... Why? What's the point?
It will essentially be a war between stupidity, profiteering, computer science nerds installing cryptographically secure jails, and people in the chat trying to make persuasive arguments that yes, in fact, this is the correct command to move on to the next step. Hopefully people learn some tactics which might be applied in similar situations in their own lives.
So, life.