On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> Pierre Gaston wrote:
>>
>> I though I showed you how your suggestion only solves part of the problem
>> in only one particular situation and in an inconsistent manner while
>> introducing
>> other problems but oh well
>
> ---
> What
Pierre Gaston wrote:
I though I showed you how your suggestion only solves part of the problem
in only one particular situation and in an inconsistent manner while
introducing
other problems but oh well
---
What are you referring to? I thought I answered
your questions.
You questions
Le 23/09/2010 02:27, Dennis Williamson wrote:
> Not to mention the
> tradeoffs that have to be made, in code, in design, in personal time.
Speaking of time... the signal/noise ratio in this thread is so
unusually low that most subscribers could probably not afford any
better than skim over it (my
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
>
> So far, no one has come up with any good reasons why this would be a
> problem, or how it would create any compatibility problems. All I've
> seen is an attitude of 'well, I don't wanna! It's my toy and I didn't
> think of the idea, and
OK, my magic error corrector chose this as its output:
bash -c 'cd foobar' && ci filename
Is that what you were hoping for?
There's a big difference between a compiler and an interpreter. The
former can afford to take the time to do some of the kinds of things
that you describe. Those same thin
Greg Wooledge wrote:
I prefer plan C: leave it alone. It's working fine.
Your preference could be used as an excuse to stop
all future growth in primitive interfaces, however 'fine'
is in the eye of the beholder. If everything was fine with
the shell, we'd all be using borne she
