These type-in programs can actually generate quicker rises in popularity of the
FSF and in total market share of GNU/Linux distributions as more and more
people are introduced by such programs (or the experience of typing them) to
the concept of free and open-source software. I mean, GNU/Linux's
I would also like the discussion on the GCC mailing list to end. The discussion
on /source/ code, however, should remain alive and well.
Sorry for all the confusion.
And by "type-in programs", I don't mean example programs like "Hello world"
programs. I mean real programs with real purpose.
Pr
No, no, not on the Internet---I mean in a paper magazine, which Internet users
can also get.
I'd like the machine code discussion to end.
--
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 26, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López
wrote:
>> I am proposing this as a possible alternative or complement to pu
> I am proposing this as a possible alternative or complement to publication
> on the Internet to take into account those without Internet access, though
> those *with* Internet access also get the benefit.
So you want to publish stuff on the Internet for people that don't have access
to the Intern
First of all, it's 2015, not 1982. (By the way, I got my inspiration for
this from the July 1984 issue of *COMPUTE!* Magazine, which I got from the
OpenLibrary project of the Internet Archive.)
Second, the machine code we type in, *if we receive any,* will most likely
be 8086 machine code, not Mot
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 01:32:21PM -0800, Ryan Cunningham wrote:
> When you receive a program in *object code* form, you would type it into an
> object code editor and then save it in a binary file.
Why? Is it 1982 again? Are we typing in 6502 machine code from a
glossy magazine?
In the 21st ce
Sorry, I apologize for all the confusion. I will try to remedy it here:
When you receive a program in *source code* form, you would type it into
Bash as follows:
cat <<'EOF' | tee [file name] | bash
type
your
script
here
EOF
Then Bash runs the script.
When you receive a program in *object code*
I'd suggest first investigating how bash works (read the source), before
claiming funky stuff. Bash interpretes *source code*, it doesn't matter how you
provide it. The only exception is what Greg specified.
And that is exactly what I mean---running a separate program. Sorry for any
confusion.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:36:37AM -0800, Ryan Cunningham wrote:
> > I mean that the program would be loaded in the same manner in which Bash
> would ex
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:36:37AM -0800, Ryan Cunningham wrote:
> I mean that the program would be loaded in the same manner in which Bash
> would execute any other object-code program that isn't loaded /into/ Bash as
> a builtin, like "ls", "su", and "dirname", all from GNU Coreutils.
Bash doe
I mean that the program would be loaded in the same manner in which Bash would
execute any other object-code program that isn't loaded /into/ Bash as a
builtin, like "ls", "su", and "dirname", all from GNU Coreutils.
--
Sent from my iPod
> On Jan 26, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:14:19AM -0800, Ryan Cunningham wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot to state that it could also be saved by an object code editor
> and loaded then like you would load any other program in object code.
Bash doesn't run object code, except in one very unusual situation:
a user-suppl
On Jan 26, 2015, at 8:35 AM, Ryan Cunningham wrote:
> These requirements only dictate how the code is provided. They dictate that
> source code must somehow be provided, even if the program is published in
> object code form; how it must be provided; and other additional requirements
> that lo
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:29:04PM +0100, Michael Mehari wrote:
> What i meant by
> variable monitoring is to periodically read variable values and store it
> to a file for later processing.
> The first approach i looked was to export this variable into the child
> process and periodically stor
Hello everyone,
This is my first appearance to the mailing list and i am looking for a
solution regarding variable monitoring in bash scripts. What i meant by
variable monitoring is to periodically read variable values and store it
to a file for later processing. The quickest and easiest way i
And, by the way, the here-document is source code; what you type into that
editor (in hexadecimal, decimal, or octal form) is object code already compiled.
--
Sent from my iPod
> On Jan 26, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Ryan Cunningham wrote:
>
> A here-document isn't object code; I mean object code you
A here-document isn't object code; I mean object code you edit in the editor
provided in or referenced by the aggregate and /then/ execute after it has been
saved, like you would save a plain text file.
--
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 26, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López
wrote:
>>
> Mr. Ramey, I already pointed that out to Mr. Stallman. I found that out from
> testing a similar technique using Python.
How is a heredoc "object code"? You're just passing the source to the bash
interpreter through a pipe, but it's still source code.
> On Jan 26, 2015, at 8:18 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
[. . .]
> Do you intend to say that this should affect how the `Type-In' addendum to
> the GPL is written or interpreted? If so, how is it different from any
> publishing requirements that exist on a shell script?
These requirements only dictat
On 26/01/15 13:43, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 08:11:41PM -0800, garegi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> As a programming language which paradigms does bash support. Declarative,
>> procedural, imperative?
>
> This belongs on help-b...@gnu.org so I'm Cc'ing that address.
>
> Shell scrip
I don't understand what this is about, but I hope you will.
Would you please ack receipt of the message? Then I presume you will DTRT.
--- Start of forwarded message ---
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,
FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,FROM_LOCAL_
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 08:11:41PM -0800, garegi...@gmail.com wrote:
> As a programming language which paradigms does bash support. Declarative,
> procedural, imperative?
This belongs on help-b...@gnu.org so I'm Cc'ing that address.
Shell scripts are procedural.
The control structures are while
22 matches
Mail list logo
