Good solution. Thanks!
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Blake McBride wrote:
> I like it. Thanks!
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Juergen Sauermann <
> juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks, I will change )LIB to ]LIB and make )LIB APL2 compliant.
>> In )LIB no e
I like it. Thanks!
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Juergen Sauermann <
juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks, I will change )LIB to ]LIB and make )LIB APL2 compliant.
> In )LIB no extension will be shown and a + will be printed after the
> workspace name if both an .apl and a
Hi,
thanks, I will change )LIB to ]LIB and make )LIB APL2 compliant.
In )LIB no extension will be shown and a + will be printed after the
workspace name if both an .apl and an .xml exist in the directory.
/// Jürgen
On 06/25/2014 06:51 PM, Blake McBride wrote:
Dear David,
I proposed somethin
Dear David,
I proposed something similar to your proposal before but it was nixed. My
current proposal allows for differences of opinion as this issue is
becoming increasingly problematic to me.
Not displaying the .xml or .apl is a new idea - one that is also important
to me.
Thanks.
Blake
O
As much as I agree with the notion of cleaning up the )LIB display, I'm not
a fan of using configuration options to change UI behavior. May I suggest
an alternative?
1) Change the )LIB command to behave as-if GNU APL only deals with
workspace files.
2) Add a new command - )LIBX, perhaps - to show
