> On Dec 27, 2023, at 2:03 PM, Chet Ramey via austin-group-l at The Open Group
> wrote:
>
> On 12/27/23 11:26 AM, Andrew Pennebaker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
> wrote:
>> Many programs depend on hashmaps in order to work.
>> awk is not an answer.
>> The lack of hashmaps forces
> On Aug 10, 2023, at 11:11 AM, Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at
> The Open Group wrote:
>
> User Reference:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/austin-group-l@opengroup.org/msg01176.html
> Section:Pathname Expansion
> Page Number:
Allow me to *try* to bring this back to the original topic :-).
I think it’s vital that “::=“, as (provisionally) accepted *8* years ago, be in
the final version.
The underlying semantics of this (GNU make’s :=) are widely used.
I don’t know if adding :::= and +:= operators is that vital. But
> On Sep 8, 2021, at 2:03 PM, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open
> Group wrote:
>
> "David A. Wheeler via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 1:06 PM, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The
> On Sep 8, 2021, at 1:06 PM, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open
> Group wrote:
> Hasn't it been explained many times that the non-orthogonal behavior of gmake
> for the += operator for macros created with the gmake := operator is a source
> of unpredictable behavior, in special
> On Sep 8, 2021, at 11:13 AM, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open
> Group wrote:
>
> "David A. Wheeler via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Paul Smith. This was agreed on 8 years ago, and the widely-used
>> GN
On Sep 8, 2021, at 9:53 AM, Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The Open Group
wrote:
> No, that's not right. In issue 7 there is no way to have any sort of
> immediate expansion in standard make. That's clearly something that
> users wanted (for the record note that I was not the one who wanted
> On Apr 12, 2021, at 1:51 PM, Oğuz wrote:
> Taking "always double-quote your dollar variables", "eval is evil, avoid it",
> etc. as "the rule" is cargo cult programming. Average programmer's
> incompetence doesn't make the shell broken or unsafe or anything like that
> and doesn't justify
> On Apr 12, 2021, at 10:57 AM, Oğuz wrote:
> 12 Nisan 2021 Pazartesi tarihinde David A. Wheeler via austin-group-l at The
> Open Group <mailto:austin-group-l@opengroup.org>> yazdı:
> If you want a robust shell script, I recommend that you try out the tool
> “sh
> On Apr 10, 2021, at 5:54 AM, Jan Hafer via austin-group-l at The Open Group
> wrote:
> ...
> 2. In an ideal scenario the semantic of a word can be make constant, so no
> other script or shell invocation running afterwards can change it (this would
> compare to best practices in compiled
10 matches
Mail list logo
