6 ms·

Not being 100% sure which command this will correct to is dangerous. Also the need for this is largely negated by a shell with autosuggestions.

by hurin 12y ago

JadeNB 12y ago
> Not being 100% sure which command this will correct to is dangerous. And yet the concept of the invocation `fuck --dry-run` is surely unappealing. :-)
- iLoch 12y ago
  What if you could fuck with a small D? `fuck -d`
- sz4kerto 12y ago
  I don't often laugh at HN comments, but when I do, I do it hard. :)
  - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    You get easily aroused.
- igorgue 12y ago
  Okay that was hilarious!
- chaosfox 12y ago
  I think dry-run should be the default. Then if you really want to run it without checking the command first you could do: fuck --without-condom or maybe fuck --iamfeelinglucky
  - jacob9706 12y ago
    Ok. The --without-condom needs to be an option.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    --bareback?
- jacob9706 12y ago
  Created a pull request for a `fuck -dry` option. Did not test nor store the command so when it is ran again it is recalled, but the base is there for it to be fully implemented.
- hurin 12y ago
  /sigh @hackernews turning into your typical reddit thread.
danso 12y ago
Yeah I agree...the appeal of CLI is to tersely do a variety of powerful commands...and the tradeoff is that you have to be exact in your syntax. The seconds saved in not having to retype something is a relatively irrelevant optimization, which isn't bad in itself except that it also introduces a significant amount of ambiguity, which can be deadly in CLI work.
giancarlostoro 12y ago
Or syntax highlighting as found in fish, red if your command will not run, blue otherwise, params in blue. Duno I wish more shells had basic syntax highlighting for input commands.
- kilotaras 11y ago
  Here's one for zsh https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting
Anderkent 12y ago
I'd like it more if it just expanded to the 'correct' command and required another return to actually run: $ apt-get install foo<return> $ fuck<return> -> sudo apt-get install foo<return> zsh does something similar for history commands, I think: $ echo foo foo $ echo !$<return> -> $ echo foo
Arcsech 12y ago
I think a good solution to this would be to have it display the command it's going to run with a y/n prompt. It would only add one extra keystroke and make the utility a lot safer. I think I'll make a pull request or fork or something that does this this weekend if somebody hasn't already by then.
- DougBTX 12y ago
  If it defaulted to yes, then running it would be, fuck<return><return> which is probably good enough. (Pressing the same key twice is pretty much the same as pressing one key, but pressing two different keys is harder.)
  - vitoreiji 12y ago
    I used to alias `rm` to `rm -i`, until I realized that I just pressed <return><y><return> without thinking.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Good point, maybe don't use this for steering satellites or weapon systems.

Not being 100% sure which command this will correct to is dangerous. Also the need for this is largely negated by a shell with autosuggestions.

by hurin 12y ago

Not being 100% sure which command this will correct to is dangerous. Also the need for this is largely negated by a shell with autosuggestions.

JadeNB 12y ago

> Not being 100% sure which command this will correct to is dangerous. And yet the concept of the invocation `fuck --dry-run` is surely unappealing. :-)

iLoch 12y ago
What if you could fuck with a small D? `fuck -d`
sz4kerto 12y ago
I don't often laugh at HN comments, but when I do, I do it hard. :)
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
  You get easily aroused.
igorgue 12y ago
Okay that was hilarious!
chaosfox 12y ago
I think dry-run should be the default. Then if you really want to run it without checking the command first you could do: fuck --without-condom or maybe fuck --iamfeelinglucky
- jacob9706 12y ago
  Ok. The --without-condom needs to be an option.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  --bareback?
jacob9706 12y ago
Created a pull request for a `fuck -dry` option. Did not test nor store the command so when it is ran again it is recalled, but the base is there for it to be fully implemented.
hurin 12y ago
/sigh @hackernews turning into your typical reddit thread.

danso 12y ago

Yeah I agree...the appeal of CLI is to tersely do a variety of powerful commands...and the tradeoff is that you have to be exact in your syntax. The seconds saved in not having to retype something is a relatively irrelevant optimization, which isn't bad in itself except that it also introduces a significant amount of ambiguity, which can be deadly in CLI work.

giancarlostoro 12y ago

Or syntax highlighting as found in fish, red if your command will not run, blue otherwise, params in blue. Duno I wish more shells had basic syntax highlighting for input commands.

kilotaras 11y ago
Here's one for zsh https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting

Anderkent 12y ago

I'd like it more if it just expanded to the 'correct' command and required another return to actually run: $ apt-get install foo<return> $ fuck<return> -> sudo apt-get install foo<return> zsh does something similar for history commands, I think: $ echo foo foo $ echo !$<return> -> $ echo foo

Arcsech 12y ago

I think a good solution to this would be to have it display the command it's going to run with a y/n prompt. It would only add one extra keystroke and make the utility a lot safer. I think I'll make a pull request or fork or something that does this this weekend if somebody hasn't already by then.

DougBTX 12y ago
If it defaulted to yes, then running it would be, fuck<return><return> which is probably good enough. (Pressing the same key twice is pretty much the same as pressing one key, but pressing two different keys is harder.)
- vitoreiji 12y ago
  I used to alias `rm` to `rm -i`, until I realized that I just pressed <return><y><return> without thinking.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

Good point, maybe don't use this for steering satellites or weapon systems.