On Mon, Nov 25, 2013, at 5:26, Martti Kühne wrote:
Announcing a shell prompt and including git.h indeed makes no sense
whatsoever. What part of git is useful when writing a shell
interpreter? I'm sorry, I can't possibly imagine how this isn't
apparent to you.
Do you understand the difference
And sending that email calls into question your ability to either read
a full thread or to recognize human names.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:11:09PM +0100, Alexander Huemer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 02:27:14PM -0500, Chris Down wrote:
On 2013-11-25 14:16:48 +0200, Dimitris Zervas wrote:
Well, making our own shell, would be a really good idea!
In my opinion others already got close enough for
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013, at 12:09, Bryan Bennett wrote:
And sending that email calls into question your ability to either read
a full thread or to recognize human names.
In my defense, you'd already had it pointed out to you once and
continued in your misconception without even understanding the
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM, random...@fastmail.us wrote:
In my defense, you'd already had it pointed out to you once and
continued in your misconception without even understanding the
correction.
Start paying attention to whom you're speaking and to whom you're
referring. I was speaking
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:36 PM, random...@fastmail.us wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013, at 13:44, Martti Kühne wrote:
Staring at the code in horror.
Something about git and nyancat.
Without running the code - I have trust issues from similar occasions
- you're kidding, right?
The nyancat thing
Oh, that's a *shell prompt* as in PROMPT_COMMAND you have there... my
bad, I was busy focusing on our efforts to have our own *interpreter*.
A shell prompt written in c. What an *utterly* educational idea!
cheers!
mar77i
Well, making our own shell, would be a really good idea!
On 2013-11-25 14:16:48 +0200, Dimitris Zervas wrote:
Well, making our own shell, would be a really good idea!
In my opinion others already got close enough for us not to worry (rc,
mksh, undoubtedly others). We had some discussion about whether we would
have a shell included with sbase, but I
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 02:27:14PM -0500, Chris Down wrote:
On 2013-11-25 14:16:48 +0200, Dimitris Zervas wrote:
Well, making our own shell, would be a really good idea!
In my opinion others already got close enough for us not to worry (rc,
mksh, undoubtedly others). We had some discussion
I know a few people who are happily using
fish (which sucks), but at least it shows that people don't necessarily
care about POSIX semantics in their shell.
Do these people really use fish as /bin/sh or do they use it as their
interactive shell? The former is _very_ scary, the latter is
On 2013-11-25 21:11:09 +0100, Alexander Huemer wrote:
Although maybe we don't have to care about POSIX any more as long as
we're not /bin/sh, who knows. I know a few people who are happily using
fish (which sucks), but at least it shows that people don't necessarily
care about POSIX
Hello,
rc from Plan 9 has been suckless for me.
But suckless is an opinion,
Lee
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 07:49:25PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote:
Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
My guess is the biggest objection (certainly mine) is that everything
happens
in `main` instead of breaking the work down into smaller functions that do
one
thing.
Actually I started with that
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:44:01 +0100
Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote:
Staring at the code in horror.
Something about git and nyancat.
Without running the code - I have trust issues from similar occasions
- you're kidding, right?
cheers!
mar77i
I honestly had to smile when I read
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:29 AM, FRIGN d...@frign.de wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:44:01 +0100
Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote:
Staring at the code in horror.
Something about git and nyancat.
Without running the code - I have trust issues from similar occasions
- you're kidding,
Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:29 AM, FRIGN d...@frign.de wrote:
I honestly had to smile when I read the code :).
However, I don't consider this good coding-style and there are quite a
few areas which could be improved.
So Markus, if you want a serious response from us,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Markus Teich
markus.te...@stusta.mhn.de wrote:
Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:29 AM, FRIGN d...@frign.de wrote:
I honestly had to smile when I read the code :).
However, I don't consider this good coding-style and there are quite a
few
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:29:30AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
However, I don't consider this good coding-style and there are quite a
few areas which could be improved.
So Markus, if you want a serious response from us, you maybe should
start writing more serious code ;).
That's what he asked for
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013, at 13:44, Martti Kühne wrote:
Staring at the code in horror.
Something about git and nyancat.
Without running the code - I have trust issues from similar occasions
- you're kidding, right?
The nyancat thing is clearly just a little joke. As for git... you can't
Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
My guess is the biggest objection (certainly mine) is that everything happens
in `main` instead of breaking the work down into smaller functions that do one
thing.
Actually I started with that approach[0], but I found it too confusing for such
a small and linear
Thanks, I will read up on the links I don't know yet.
And many thanks for a constructive post! ;)
I'm just trying to do my best to make this mailing list suckless.
just read some of these books
http://books.cat-v.org/computer-science/
23 matches
Mail list logo
