You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hey @marcelarie, I really like this idea – thanks! There's an existing --shellless / -s arg (a boolean flag) that I think it would be great to harmonize with.
One thought is that along with a new --shell arg as you suggest, --shellless would remain, and would be exactly equivalent to --shell=none (or --shell none) in the new setup. For simplicity, and for maintaining backwards-compatibility, I think the short form -s should continue to refer to --shellless.
Allowing -s to somehow control both cases is appealing (-s on its own equating to --shellless, and -s fish setting a shell) but I can't see a way of doing this that doesn't introduce ambiguity – is the arg following -s a shell, a layout, or a command? Maybe there's merit in checking whether the arg is an executable command?
(eg. if command -v "${argshell}"; then ...) But this starts to seem too nuanced. Very open to your thoughts on this.
I'd welcome a pull request for this if you have the time and are interested, but I'd also be happy to whip something up soon, whichever you prefer. I'm adding a few small quality-of-life features in the coming weeks that this will dovetail nicely with.
I think it would be really useful to have a flag to specify the shell that will be used to run the commands.
For example"
Instead of doing something like:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: