On Sat, Jan 18, 2025, at 5:10 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> spilled so much text
bah, who needs proofreading anyway. everyone loves mangled metaphors
--
vq
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025, at 4:30 PM, Wiley Young wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 9:00 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
>> So, if a sentence is ambiguous, then your assertion that it "can't not
> be read that way" must be false.
>
> I'm sorry you didn't get it on the first read through, Greg.
Ironic that so
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025, at 4:47 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 16:42:59 -0500, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>> It is true that the man page and texinfo manual do not define
>> "character". (It does not mean "abstraction"; I'm not sure how you
>> arrived at that conclusion).
>
> That
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025, at 3:07 PM, Wiley Young wrote:
> Delving into the free Writing 101 lessons here
I would like a refund, please.
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 4:16 AM Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>> " I find Wiley's main thesis -- that this sentence reads as a sort
> of topic sentence that imp
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 16:42:59 -0500, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> It is true that the man page and texinfo manual do not define
> "character". (It does not mean "abstraction"; I'm not sure how you
> arrived at that conclusion).
That was my word. If you have a better one, I'd love to hear it.
I
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 9:00 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> So, if a sentence is ambiguous, then your assertion that it "can't not
be read that way" must be false.
I'm sorry you didn't get it on the first read through, Greg. Just think of
how those professionals felt when they spun their wheels for ho
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 12:07:55 -0800, Wiley Young wrote:
> No, it isn't that the sentence could be read that way, it's that the
> sentence can't not be read that way. It's ambiguous.
Do you know what "ambiguous" means? It literally means that something
can be interpreted in multiple ways.
So,
Delving into the free Writing 101 lessons here
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 4:16 AM Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> " I find Wiley's main thesis -- that this sentence reads as a sort
of topic sentence that implicitly prefixes "alphabetic" to every
subsequent use of "character" -- to be pretty contrive
"I would have preferred short papers that were a pleasure to read. However,
as Peter Medawar (1979) truthfully has said, “Most scientists do not know
how to write.” - Per Brinch Hansen, "Evolution of Operating Systems," 200,
pg.2
http://brinch-hansen.net/papers/2001b.pdf
"The basic goal was to pro
!!:$ null
!$ null
$_ echo
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025, 7:29 AM Martin Schulte
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in 9.3.2 of https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html we find:
>
> !!:$ designates the last argument of the preceding command. This may be
> shortened to !$.
>
> Shouldn't this be "the last word"
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 23:32:18 -0500, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> Here's an attempt at clarification that restructures the section
> and describes the behavior of ${foo^x} more explicitly. It also
> avoids the aforementioned confusion between the ^/, "operators"
> and the ^/, "expansions".
>
>
>
> hobbit:~$ var='garçon'
> hobbit:~$ echo "${var^^}"
> GARÇON
>
But, UTF-8 is a kind of nightmare:
var1=$'gar\303\247on'
var2=$'garc\314\247on'
printf '%q\n' "$var1" "$var2"
garçon
garçon
(nfd vs nfc) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence
Trying to upper all letter fro
12 matches
Mail list logo
