> Peter Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 5 May 2000 at
13:52:17 +1000
> > On Thu, 4 May 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 5 May 2000 at
11:56:47 +1000
> > > > On Thu, 4 May 2000, Kins Orekhov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not just store the logs in there accustamp or multilog
form and
> > > > > > convert them to localtime ONLY when you need to look at them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because we look at them too often :)
> > > >
> > > > And can't you look at them by passing them through tai64nlocal
each
> > > > time? Can you spell "shell script wrapper"? :)
> > >
> > > Except I don't usually look at those log files by starting up a new
> > > instance of some program; I usually look at them by calling them into
> > > a buffer in an already-running instance of an editor.
> >
> > And you editor can't read in the results of a program?
>
> I can think offhand of a couple of ways of doing it, but all of them
> are grossly inefficient and take lots of keystrokes. There may well
> be an easy way I'm overlooking, too. Nothing exotic, I'm an emacs
> user. I'm not starting a new instance, I'm visiting the log file from
> my existing instance.
> --
> Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon:
http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
> Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
> David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that this discussion has come to the point where you are both right
and it's just a matter preference. Let it rest before flame starts flying
around.
JES
