On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:17:23 +0200
Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Ethan Grammatikidis writes:
>
> > It's redirection and the behaviour of cp & mv when the last arg is a
> > dir that bother me, in rc.
>
> What has the behavior of cp and mv to do with the shell used?
Shell language in general, a
Ethan Grammatikidis writes:
> It's redirection and the behaviour of cp & mv when the last arg is a
> dir that bother me, in rc.
What has the behavior of cp and mv to do with the shell used?
rc's redirection syntax is remarkably clean and powerful, but it
shouldn't be very hard to hack "2>&1" su
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:33:51 +0200
Jens Staal wrote:
> 2011/9/25 Ethan Grammatikidis :
> > On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
> > Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> ...
> > There are only two implementations of rc that I know of, and one is
> > brain-damaged and best ignored. I've found i
2011/9/25 Ethan Grammatikidis :
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
> Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
...
> There are only two implementations of rc that I know of, and one is
> brain-damaged and best ignored. I've found it a remarkably elegant
> language, although it is possible an even
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> because it is missing mass adoption
once you start using this as an excuse, you are stuck with bash forever
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Patrick Haller
<201009-suckl...@haller.ws> wrote:
> why ocaml;wu? because it's outside the C/sh stack, or ?
probably because ocaml is at the stage of its life where it's a
complete pain in the ass to deploy on more than one computer at once
and it's almost impossi
Ethan Grammatikidis writes:
> Anyone know why ghc is that big? I'm having trouble figuring it out.
It bundles a large amount of libraries, and probably duplicate versions
with profiling data as well. A self-contained GHC build (as created
after compiling and prior to installation) is 182MiB on
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> Comments and ideas for an sh alternative, which sucks less, are
> welcome.
I forgot to mention that I often think something about the shell could
be smoother but I can never put my finger on what.
Also this:
11:52:05
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> All we need is a better syntax for sh,
> This
> should be doable in the size of dash. Rc does not fit very well,
> because it is missing mass adoption and has some ugliness in the
> various implementations across Plan 9
Greetings,
Patrick Haller wrote:
> On 2011-09-25 03:19, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
>> ocaml;wu (ocaml; won't use)
>
> use the bringer_obsolete.bash [1] from the package?
>
> why ocaml;wu? because it's outside the C/sh stack, or ?
in the first ecumenical council of the suckless church, C and sh
we
10 matches
Mail list logo
