On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:35:25 -0700
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Good point.
No, actually this was a shitty point.
I don't know why so many people are apparently that masochistic to
actually go through the shell- madness!
Like, how often do you guys reconfigure your software? Is it too
much to ask for
On Mon 03 Nov 2014 at 14:26:39 PDT Greg Reagle wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 04:11 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
Environment variables are essentially global variables, visible to every
program and not just the one you want to configure.
Not necessarily. If you set them in .profile or .bashrc or
On 2014-11-03 14:32, Greg Reagle wrote:
> It occurred to me that environment variables can be used to configure a
> program, instead of programming in a parser or extension language
Things to think over and critique:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch10s04.html
extern char **environ;
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 11:31:38PM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:01:13 -0500
> Brandon Mulcahy wrote:
>
> > I'm not advocating a more general approach, however; that minor convenience
> > would be nowhere near worth the headache of having to figure out whether
> > a program is being
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 05:21:20PM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 05:14 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Brandon Mulcahy
> > wrote:
> > > choice (besides doing something like `export option=a; command; export
> > > option=b`). I do wish the concept
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 17:01:13 -0500
Brandon Mulcahy wrote:
> I'm not advocating a more general approach, however; that minor convenience
> would be nowhere near worth the headache of having to figure out whether a
> program is being invoked by a user or by another program in the general case.
Pars
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 05:14 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Brandon Mulcahy
> wrote:
> > choice (besides doing something like `export option=a; command; export
> > option=b`). I do wish the concept of aliasing were a bit more general.
>
>
> Did you hear of the shell
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Brandon Mulcahy wrote:
> choice (besides doing something like `export option=a; command; export
> option=b`). I do wish the concept of aliasing were a bit more general.
Did you hear of the shell feature where you could immediately pass
environment variables by pr
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:46:06PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
> Brandon Mulcahy wrote:
> > I do wish the concept of aliasing were a bit more general. It'd be nice to
> > be able to have something like it in dmenu without having to resort to
> > wrapper scripts.
>
> What is wrong with having a bina
Heyho,
Brandon Mulcahy wrote:
> Having an option be an environment variable instead of a command-line option
> denies the user that choice (besides doing something like `export option=a;
> command; export option=b`).
You don't need the export.
> I do wish the concept of aliasing were a bit more
Greg Reagle wrote:
> Other programs would not see these variables, other than child processes of
> mutt.
Heyho,
Which could be any editor, attachment viewing program, tunneling tool, process
you pipe a mail to, etc. You should unsetenv(3) them after parsing.
--Markus
One thing I like about command-line options is that you can either specify
them "automatically" via a shell alias or manually. Having an option be an
environment variable instead of a command-line option denies the user that
choice (besides doing something like `export option=a; command; export
opt
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 04:11 PM, Charlie Kester wrote:
> Environment variables are essentially global variables, visible to every
> program and not just the one you want to configure.
Not necessarily. If you set them in .profile or .bashrc or .xsession
then yes, but each program processes its ow
On Mon 03 Nov 2014 at 12:32:25 PDT Greg Reagle wrote:
I just had a thought that might be of interest to fans of the suckless
philosophy.
It occurred to me that environment variables can be used to configure a
program, instead of programming in a parser or extension language into a
program. Are
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 03:21 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> Another down-side is that different shells use different syntax for
> setting
> and unsetting environment variables, which can be a PITA if you want
> to share your configuration.
I am just speculating here, a though experiment, but th
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 02:45 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> Not everyone runs his programs from a shell.
Definitely. I wouldn't want that to be a requirement. I would want the
environment to be a tool for implementing run-time configuration, rather
than a user-interface requirement. Whether that is possib
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 02:59 PM, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> The environment is also of limited size. I think POSIX guarantees a
> space
> of about 2kB iirc for environment variables.
Thanks Dimitris. That would definitely be a disadvantage.
> This approach also does not scale in general as p
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:32:25PM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote:
> I just had a thought that might be of interest to fans of the suckless
> philosophy.
>
> It occurred to me that environment variables can be used to configure a
> program, instead of programming in a parser or extension language into a
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:32:25PM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote:
> ...
> variables. Do you know of any programs that do this? I assume there
> ...
Greg, bs[0] is a nice little script[1] that makes setting up a config
file with environment variables a breeze!
There's also envdir[2] from daemontools.
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:59:14PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> For run-time configuration I'd opt for command line options or if that is
> not enough, I'd go for a simple configuration file. There are legitimate
> cases where config.h is simply not enough or not applicable. Think of
> a l
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:32:25PM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote:
> I just had a thought that might be of interest to fans of the suckless
> philosophy.
>
> It occurred to me that environment variables can be used to configure a
> program, instead of programming in a parser or extension language into a
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:32:25 -0500
Greg Reagle wrote:
> It occurred to me that environment variables can be used to configure a
> program, instead of programming in a parser or extension language into a
> program. Are there any reasons not to just use environment variables?
> Then a rc file cou
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 02:37 PM, Markus Teich wrote:
> you still have to parse the contents of the environment variables
> compared to
> static compiled in configuration as in config.h.
That's true and that's a good point, but I am interested in discussing
environment variables as a form of *run-
Greg Reagle wrote:
> It occurred to me that environment variables can be used to configure a
> program, instead of programming in a parser or extension language into a
> program. Are there any reasons not to just use environment variables? Then a
> rc file could just be a shell script that sets e
I just had a thought that might be of interest to fans of the suckless
philosophy.
It occurred to me that environment variables can be used to configure a
program, instead of programming in a parser or extension language into a
program. Are there any reasons not to just use environment variables?
Plan 9 always sucks less than unix.
On Feb 12, 2012 8:38 AM, "Bjartur Thorlacius" wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:09:44 -, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Some of you might be more experienced in the old Unix ways and
>> might know how in the good old days all the environment
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 01:09:44PM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Greetings comrades.
>
> Some of you might be more experienced in the old Unix ways and
> might know how in the good old days all the environment variables
> were standardized. What I am up to: There are these new stylish
> ways o
- Original Message -
> From: Bjartur Thorlacius
> Bind mount or symlink. Do not construct pathnames from environment variables.
> mount -o bind /usr/bin/vim /bin/editor
> In fact, the /etc/alternatives mess of Debian would be acceptable, if it were
> not for the symlinks from /usr/bin
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:09:44 -, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
Some of you might be more experienced in the old Unix ways and
might know how in the good old days all the environment variables
were standardized. What I am up to: There are these new stylish
ways of running application
I don't get what you're trying to do.
On 02/12/2012 13:09, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
Greetings comrades.
Some of you might be more experienced in the old Unix ways and
might know how in the good old days all the environment variables
were standardized. What I am up to: There are these new stylish
ways of running applications based on
Greetings comrades.
Some of you might be more experienced in the old Unix ways and
might know how in the good old days all the environment variables
were standardized. What I am up to: There are these new stylish
ways of running applications based on their file extensions or
mime types, which is a
32 matches
Mail list logo
