On Jun 9 14:54, Max Kaehn wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 01:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jun 8 11:44, Max Kaehn wrote:
> > > I wound up using "eval", and was thoroughly perplexed at the way
> > > that the first "eval" seems to get thrown away.
> >
> > -v, please.
> >
> > tcsh> sh
> >
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 9 14:54, Max Kaehn wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 01:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Jun 8 11:44, Max Kaehn wrote:
> > > > I wound up using "eval", and was thoroughly perplexed at the way
> > > > that the first "eval" seems to get thro
Original Message
>From: Max Kaehn
>Sent: 08 June 2005 19:44
> On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 16:51, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Actually neither is right. The tests are supposed to run to
>> completion, not stop on a failure.
>
> My first cut was this, but it could have led to a tedious
> accumu
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Look, if it's getting complicated and tricky, that argues for a bit of
>a rethink / redesign, doesn't it?
Yes. I was wondering why we were going down this path when we've both
noted that maybe it wasn't a good idea.
I would still prefer
