3 ms·
Yes, the article is flat out wrong there. Probably a typo or pasto though. Instead of ls /long/path/to/some/file/or/other.txt:h it should be ls !:$:
by emmelaich 9y ago
Yes, the article is flat out wrong there. Probably a typo or pasto though.
Instead of
ls /long/path/to/some/file/or/other.txt:h
it should be
ls !:$:h
which would produce
other.txt