make does well.
(I've been tempted to modify mbld to build C code -- I don't think it would
be too hard -- but it seems like this is probably not something that'd
generate too much interest.)
--
Ori Bernstein
/Public/11.0.0/ucd/Scripts.txt
And then breaking ties by order of preference. That gives
you fewer jarring transitions, where one font happens to
implement a small number of glyphs but others cover the
range fully.
--
Ori Bernstein
g debug information is a useful default. For most
programs, the space of keeping the debug information around is well
worth the additional debuggability and clarity in bug reports.
--
Ori Bernstein
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 23:29:04 +0300
ochern wrote:
> Unfortunately as more complex becomes configuration part the more perverted
> and unreadable it will look when done using make, at the same time it will
> keep nice look in pure shell variant. Yet a lower part, rules part, will
> not change for
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:27:27AM +0300, Alexander Krotov wrote:
> ninja claims to be "as fast as possible" but starts shell instead of
> executing programs directly like make does.
Since when did make execute the programs directly? It runs each line
of the recipe in its own shell.
