On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 07:27:45PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> My guess is: there's a collection of image files which (occasionally?)
> gets added to, he wants to clean up this data from the files in that
> collection that have it, and he doesn't want to have to keep track of
> which ones have and
On 2022-09-26 at 19:16, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 26 Sep 2022 at 21:31:55 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
>
>> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> The entire thread was a result of your assumption that exif would
>>> NOT write the words "Wrote file" if the input file had no exif
>>> tag in it. This turned
On Mon 26 Sep 2022 at 21:31:55 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> >> Look more, quote less ...
> >>
> >> for f in **/*.jpg; do exif --remove -o $f $f; done | grep
> > 'Wrote
> >> file' | wc -l # 2277 (1st invocation)
> >>
> >> for f in **/*
debian-user wrote:
>> In programming the focus is perhaps better, for something
>> idempotent, something like: Do it the first time.
>> Don't screw it up the second time? And don't do the
>> computing if it doesn't need to be done?
>
> Sorry, but idempotence says nothing at all about
> computation
> In programming the focus is perhaps better, for something
> idempotent, something like: Do it the first time. Don't screw
> it up the second time? And don't do the computing if it
> doesn't need to be done?
Sorry, but idempotence says nothing at all about computational
efficiency or cost.
And
Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> Look more, quote less ...
>>
>> for f in **/*.jpg; do exif --remove -o $f $f; done | grep
> 'Wrote
>> file' | wc -l # 2277 (1st invocation)
>>
>> for f in **/*.jpg; do exif --remove -o $f $f; done | grep
> 'Wrote
>> file' |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 09:07:29PM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> See the first post ...
> >>>
> >>> The OP didn't contain any exif output, only a couple of
> >>> command lines, apparently written in zsh shell
> >>
> >> Look again!
> >
> > Look at it? I'll quote it in f
Curt wrote:
> One "programming" example given on that same Wikipedia page
> was that if you applied an update operation to Lutz
> Mueller's email address in a database (*ich habe
> Kopfschmerzen*!) that same update applied a second or third
> time (ad infinitum) would produce identical results.
Y
David Wright wrote:
See the first post ...
>>>
>>> The OP didn't contain any exif output, only a couple of
>>> command lines, apparently written in zsh shell
>>
>> Look again!
>
> Look at it? I'll quote it in full (attached).
Look more, quote less ...
for f in **/*.jpg; do exif --remo
mick.crane wrote:
>> I have now clarified to the best of my ability the meaning
>> of that word and I think that will help people understand
>> at last why incorrect tech information, actually
>> disinformation at that point, can't be allowed in software
>> documentation. I get it now that this wa
On Mon 26 Sep 2022 at 07:42:16 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> >> See the first post ...
> >
> > The OP didn't contain any exif output, only a couple of
> > command lines, apparently written in zsh shell
>
> Look again!
Look at it? I'll quote it in full (attached).
> > Th
On Sunday, September 25, 2022 08:42:57 AM The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2022-09-25 at 08:22, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Oops, ignore that previous response ...
> >
> > On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a
> > way that I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my morni
On 2022-09-25, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> If the nature of operation O is such that objects B and
>> C are guaranteed to always be identical, no matter what
>> object A was, then operation O is categorized as
>> being idempotent.
>
> It has to do with the number of times it is
On 2022-09-26 06:42, Emanuel Berg wrote:
<...>
I have now clarified to the best of my ability the meaning of
that word and I think that will help people understand at last
why incorrect tech information, actually disinformation at
that point, can't be allowed in software documentation. I get
it n
14 matches
Mail list logo
