On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 12:24:59PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 06:38:36AM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
> [snip]
> > ,-*- diff snip -*-
> > |-t4=`echo $t3 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
> > |-t5=`echo $t1 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
> > |+t4=`pos_param 1 $t3`
> > |+
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 06:38:36AM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
[snip]
> ,-*- diff snip -*-
> |-t4=`echo $t3 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
> |-t5=`echo $t1 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
> |+t4=`pos_param 1 $t3`
> |+t5=`pos_param 1 $t1`
> 5 t6=`echo $t4 - $t5 | tr a-f A-F`
> 6 t7=`( echo
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:14:07PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:03:32PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:40 am, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > > Your objection is a bit like saying "and don't use cat". I'm saying
> > > > don't
> > > > call cat
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:14:07PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:03:32PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:40 am, Oleg Verych wrote:
Your objection is a bit like saying and don't use cat. I'm saying
don't
call cat gcat when you just
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 06:38:36AM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
[snip]
,-*- diff snip -*-
|-t4=`echo $t3 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
|-t5=`echo $t1 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
|+t4=`pos_param 1 $t3`
|+t5=`pos_param 1 $t1`
5 t6=`echo $t4 - $t5 | tr a-f A-F`
6 t7=`( echo ibase=16
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 12:24:59PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 06:38:36AM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
[snip]
,-*- diff snip -*-
|-t4=`echo $t3 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
|-t5=`echo $t1 | gawk '{ print $1 }'`
|+t4=`pos_param 1 $t3`
|+t5=`pos_param 1
Hallo.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:18:30AM +0100, Tim Schmielau wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> > In Debian's version it has no `bc', while native `bc' is producing
> > crap like that:
> > ,-*- bash -*-
> > |[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ printf "%u" $(( -1 )) ; echo
> >
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> In Debian's version it has no `bc', while native `bc' is producing
> crap like that:
> ,-*- bash -*-
> |[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ printf "%u" $(( -1 )) ; echo
> |18446744073709551615
> |[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ echo -1 | bc
> |-1
> |[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ printf
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 12:47:20PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:18 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> > > As I said, I'm not particularly interested in a more intrusive solution
> > > solving a problem I haven't actually seen. I don't see any obvious
> > > reason
> > >
On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:18 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > As I said, I'm not particularly interested in a more intrusive solution
> > solving a problem I haven't actually seen. I don't see any obvious reason
> > why it wouldn't work, and yes it would probably also solve my problem, but
> > I
On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:18 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
As I said, I'm not particularly interested in a more intrusive solution
solving a problem I haven't actually seen. I don't see any obvious reason
why it wouldn't work, and yes it would probably also solve my problem, but
I still
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 12:47:20PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:18 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
As I said, I'm not particularly interested in a more intrusive solution
solving a problem I haven't actually seen. I don't see any obvious
reason
why it wouldn't
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
In Debian's version it has no `bc', while native `bc' is producing
crap like that:
,-*- bash -*-
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ printf %u $(( -1 )) ; echo
|18446744073709551615
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ echo -1 | bc
|-1
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ printf %u $(( 0xFF
Hallo.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:18:30AM +0100, Tim Schmielau wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
In Debian's version it has no `bc', while native `bc' is producing
crap like that:
,-*- bash -*-
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ printf %u $(( -1 )) ; echo
|18446744073709551615
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 02:38:02PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 25 January 2007 2:14 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > I believe "shift 5" is also SUSv3. :)
> >
> > If you have tested, please send ack or nack to us.
>
> I have not. I tested the one I sent. Today I'm at a different
On Thursday 25 January 2007 2:14 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > I believe "shift 5" is also SUSv3. :)
>
> If you have tested, please send ack or nack to us.
I have not. I tested the one I sent. Today I'm at a different location than
that test environment. All I can try it on here is Ubuntu, and
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:03:32PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:40 am, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > Your objection is a bit like saying "and don't use cat". I'm saying
> > > don't
> > > call cat "gcat" when you just mean plain old cat.
> >
> > No it's not, really. I
On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:40 am, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > Your objection is a bit like saying "and don't use cat". I'm saying don't
> > call cat "gcat" when you just mean plain old cat.
>
> No it's not, really. I don't want to see pipes, fork()s, disk seek,
> when task can be done without it.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 08:51:32PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 January 2007 4:03 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> > Let me propose you to test this as solution, that need no awk, only shell:
>
> Actually awk is one of the standard Single Unix Specification (version 3)
> utilities and
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 08:51:32PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
On Wednesday 24 January 2007 4:03 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
Let me propose you to test this as solution, that need no awk, only shell:
Actually awk is one of the standard Single Unix Specification (version 3)
utilities and the
On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:40 am, Oleg Verych wrote:
Your objection is a bit like saying and don't use cat. I'm saying don't
call cat gcat when you just mean plain old cat.
No it's not, really. I don't want to see pipes, fork()s, disk seek,
when task can be done without it. I know,
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:03:32PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 25 January 2007 4:40 am, Oleg Verych wrote:
Your objection is a bit like saying and don't use cat. I'm saying
don't
call cat gcat when you just mean plain old cat.
No it's not, really. I don't want to see
On Thursday 25 January 2007 2:14 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
I believe shift 5 is also SUSv3. :)
If you have tested, please send ack or nack to us.
I have not. I tested the one I sent. Today I'm at a different location than
that test environment. All I can try it on here is Ubuntu, and so
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 02:38:02PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
On Thursday 25 January 2007 2:14 pm, Oleg Verych wrote:
I believe shift 5 is also SUSv3. :)
If you have tested, please send ack or nack to us.
I have not. I tested the one I sent. Today I'm at a different location than
24 matches
Mail list logo
