A refined version of the diff with 2 less bugs and shorter by ~40 or
so lines. Changes from previous version...
Reuse region_get_data() to extract C string from selected region
instead of custom line by line iteration, thereby reducing number of
send(2) syscalls.
Fix a bug which causes gratuitous
irrespective of all the talk going on here... :)
-Toby.
Regardless, I stand by my original comment. :)
On Thursday, March 29, 2012, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:00:56AM -0400, Kjell Wooding wrote:
> > There's nothing *technically* wrong with "irrespective," but it is a tad
> > awkward when compared with "regardless."
> >
>
> ther
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:00:56AM -0400, Kjell Wooding wrote:
>> There's nothing *technically* wrong with "irrespective," but it is a tad
>> awkward when compared with "regardless."
>>
>
> there's nothing *at all* wrong with "irrespective"
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:00:56AM -0400, Kjell Wooding wrote:
> There's nothing *technically* wrong with "irrespective," but it is a tad
> awkward when compared with "regardless."
>
there's nothing *at all* wrong with "irrespective". you obviously just
don;t like it (if we don;t use words or phr
There's nothing *technically* wrong with "irrespective," but it is a tad
awkward when compared with "regardless."
"irregardless" is a hangable offense.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:46:46PM -0400, Kjell Wooding wrote:
> > s/irrespective/regar
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:46:46PM -0400, Kjell Wooding wrote:
> s/irrespective/regardless/
>
there's nothing wrong with "irrespective". it's used correctly here (to
mean exactly the same as "regardless"). are you maybe confusing it with
the classic "irregardless"?
"irregardless" is sometimes wo
s/irrespective/regardless/
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Sunil Nimmagadda <
su...@sunilnimmagadda.com> wrote:
> This version implements some off-list review comments...
>
> 1. Discard explicit checking whether command exists and it's
> permissions since shell already does and reports error.
>
This version implements some off-list review comments...
1. Discard explicit checking whether command exists and it's
permissions since shell already does and reports error.
2. Remove unnecessary bzero call.
3. Document minor deviation from emacs behaviour in README.
Index: README
=
Third attempt, and these are the changes done since the first version
of this diff.
1. Check for existence of the command to be executed and also the
permissions.
2. Replace popen(3) which messed stdout with socketpair(2), fork(2)
and execl(2).
3. IO multiplexing using poll(2) to prevent dea
> This version properly captures data from external command and puts it
> into *Shell Command Output* buffer. These are the new commands added
> to mg with this diff...
>
> C-x h mark-whole-buffer
> M-| shell-command-on-region
>
> Comments?
I'll try and review this diff this weekend.
Did anyon
This version properly captures data from external command and puts it
into *Shell Command Output* buffer. These are the new commands added
to mg with this diff...
C-x h mark-whole-buffer
M-| shell-command-on-region
Comments?
Index: buffer.c
=
I can have a look at this, though it may not be for a week or so.
Testers/comments welcome...
mark
This diff allows a user pipe text from current region in mg to
external command. Also adds a command to mark whole buffer. Comments?
Index: def.h
===
RCS file: /home/sunil/cvs/src/usr.bin/mg/def.h,v
retrieving revision 1.118
diff -u -
14 matches
Mail list logo
