On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:16:29AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Hi Markus,
On 20 December 2015 at 12:04, Markus Wichmann wrote:
Long story short, I wrote a dwmclock, that also displays the current
default interface's first letter (usually sufficient, as most people
have only at most one networ
you'll find an other one to troll, frign. everything will be ok :P
Hi Markus,
On 20 December 2015 at 12:04, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> Long story short, I wrote a dwmclock, that also displays the current
> default interface's first letter (usually sufficient, as most people
> have only at most one network card of each type in their machines), as
> well as download
FRIGN wrote:
> I had that floating in my mind as well, but the thing is, that some utils call
> usage() pretty often. You would have to specify the long usage-string every
> time which makes it unfeasable.
Heyho FRIGN,
yeah right…
$ grep -r "usage()" | wc -l
219
$ ls *.c | wc -l
87
I thought a
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:49:58 +0100
Markus Teich wrote:
Hey Markus,
> what do you think about making `usage(int status, char *shortargs)` an
> eprintf-like function in eprintf.c? This might clear things up for everyone.
I had that floating in my mind as well, but the thing is, that some utils
ca
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:48:29 +0100
"e...@bestmx.net" wrote:
>
I'll leave this uncommented.
--
FRIGN
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
> FRIGN wrote:
> > I thought about this tonight and came to the conclusion that this "hack"
> > doesn't introduce too many problems.
>
> Heyho FRIGN,
>
> what do you think about making `usage(int status, char *shortargs)` an
> eprintf-
FRIGN wrote:
> I thought about this tonight and came to the conclusion that this "hack"
> doesn't introduce too many problems.
Heyho FRIGN,
what do you think about making `usage(int status, char *shortargs)` an
eprintf-like function in eprintf.c? This might clear things up for everyone.
--Markus
thank you for explaining the guiding principle of suckless community.
OBSCURE THE CODE AS YOU CAN.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:28:57 +0100
"e...@bestmx.net" wrote:
> i have already given up on you.
> you are beyond hope,
> have fun.
You have given up because you are too stubborn. There is no technical
reason to change it. Dive into POSIX and dwell in the complexity and
inconsistency.
The person th
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:26:58 +0100
FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:21:39 +0100
> "e...@bestmx.net" wrote:
>
> > you have created a HIDDEN unexpected special behaviour within a function.
>
> It's not hidden, it's free software, and Richard Stallman gave us the freedom
> to study, sell and
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:21:39 +0100
"e...@bestmx.net" wrote:
> you have created a HIDDEN unexpected special behaviour within a function.
It's not hidden, it's free software, and Richard Stallman gave us the freedom
to study, sell and publish the source code as wished.
> you have conflated TWO mu
> I also see no reason to add a specific usage-eprintf-function. What's
> wrong with the strncmp()? Tell me please!
how many times i have to do it?
i told you already three times.
you have created a HIDDEN unexpected special behaviour within a function.
you have conflated TWO mutually exclusive s
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:13:06 +0100
"e...@bestmx.net" wrote:
Hey Eugene,
> so you insist, on your stupid strncmp()
> ok. good luck.
nah, just refactored the code. Refactoring means that you generally don't
change the behaviour. I think, before we can even start discussing this
properly, the code
> I reworked eprintf.c to get rid of the duplicate code:
> http://git.2f30.org/sbase/tree/libutil/eprintf.c
so you insist, on your stupid strncmp()
ok. good luck.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:45:25 +0100
"e...@bestmx.net" wrote:
> > Now, what you did here is rip out this status code handling
>
> No, i didn't
My bad, I shouldn't look only at the diffs, might be confusing.
> > In sbase, we have this more or less "scheme" how function naming
> > works.
>
> how
> > in response to the request made by Evil_Bob on OFTC#suckless
> > i hereby supply the patch "sbase"
> > and the proposed version of "eprintf.c"
> > as i believe it should look like.
> >
> > http://file.bestmx.net/ee/suckless/
>
> Now, what you did here is rip out this status code handling
No
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 02:11:49 +0100
"e...@bestmx.net" wrote:
Hey Eugene,
> in response to the request made by Evil_Bob on OFTC#suckless
> i hereby supply the patch "sbase"
> and the proposed version of "eprintf.c"
> as i believe it should look like.
>
> http://file.bestmx.net/ee/suckless/
let m
19 matches
Mail list logo
