On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> So it's a question of predictability (always do the same or do nothing) vs.
> robustness (do as much as you can given the circumstances). I'm not sure
> which one is better in this case.
I think it's fine the way it is now. Thanks for the pa
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:41:53PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
> I've followed up on the explanation by Segher about 2.15 File module
> version and fixed the comment.
>
> I've not added the 2.15 file module version check on copy Segher also
> mentioned, since I'm not sure about that one. AFAIU th
On 18-09-14 19:46, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
On 08/04/2014 12:14 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 04-08-14 08:45, Yury Gribov wrote:
Thanks! My 2 (actually 4) cents below.
Hi Yuri,
thanks for the review.
> +if ($#ARGV == 1 && ("$ARGV[0]" eq
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>
> On 08/04/2014 12:14 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>> On 04-08-14 08:45, Yury Gribov wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks! My 2 (actually 4) cents below.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Yuri,
>>
>> thanks for the review.
>>
>>> > +if ($#ARGV == 1 && ("$ARGV[0]" eq "-i" || "$ARG
On 08/04/2014 12:14 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 04-08-14 08:45, Yury Gribov wrote:
Thanks! My 2 (actually 4) cents below.
Hi Yuri,
thanks for the review.
> +if ($#ARGV == 1 && ("$ARGV[0]" eq "-i" || "$ARGV[0]" eq
"--inline")) {
> +$diff = $ARGV[1];
Can we shift here and then just set
