On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 10:53:01PM -0500, Galos, David wrote:
> > I also see it a lot in scripts, along with using full options instead
> > of short--perhaps to be more verbose? So, for compatibility, perhaps it
> > is best to allow both.
> If you mean GNU --long-options, then never in a million ye
On 2013-07-07, at 05:53, David Galos wrote:
> If sbase gains programs to do compression, and the code is nicely librarized,
> I will consider thinking about considering adding letting tar do that.
Why not call out to the compression program? Pipes are not patented by shells.
This decouples things
Markus Wichmann dixit:
>One way I also find myself using quite often:
>
>tar xfC filename.tar.gz directory
This one is, I believe, not portable: behind f the
filename must be immediately. (Also you forgot z.)
An often-seen case of this unportablity is people
using 'tar xfz foo.tgz' instead of xzf
Why don't we just use popen?
On Jul 7, 2013 3:24 AM, "Markus Wichmann" wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 10:53:01PM -0500, Galos, David wrote:
> > > I also see it a lot in scripts, along with using full options instead
> > > of short--perhaps to be more verbose? So, for compatibility, perhaps it
>
On 06/07/2013, Galos, David wrote:
> The attached patch shows my current work on adapting sltar
> to sbase. It is functional, but, there are still open questions
> regarding tar. The big deal is the argument parsing: I would
> like to use the ARG macros in tar, but I'm not sure how that
> fits wi
On 04/07/2013, sin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:34:14PM +, Robert Ransom wrote:
>> sha1sum.c is very similar to md5sum.c; ideally, more of the common
>> code between those programs would be in a library routine.
>
> Yeah they are very similar, however, the code is very simple and
> ther
I see some utilities in sbase what could easily be shorter as
shell/awk scripts. Some utilities I sent in earlier, e.g. cut, were
turned down for this reason.
For examples, head:
#!/bin/sh
n=10;
while getopts 'n:' o; do
case $o in
(n) n="$OPTARG";;
esac
done
Strake dixit:
>miss them. Archiver/compressor integration loses, for it needs a flag
>and code for each compression format.
I’d not use those anyway. I normally compress with:
find foo -type f | sort | cpio -oC512 -Hustar | gzip -n9 >foo.tgz
Failing that, this one’s almost the same:
tar -b 1 -
Strake dixit:
>shift $(dc -e "$OPTIND 1 - p");
*what*?!
shift $(($OPTIND-1)) is POSIX.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much
*much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of
ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider
Why are these in C?
Because shell scripts tend to run many processes compared to only one
if you don't fork in the C code?
--Markus
In Xdefs.h, Bool is typedef'd as int (= at least 2 bytes, sometimes more,
depending on the implementation), of which we set the last bit to 1 or 0.
In the Monitor and Client structures dwm uses, we can instead use char bit
fields, storing up to 8 Bool values in 1 byte.
diff --git a/dwm.c b/dwm.c
this will be useful for running dwm on my pdp-11.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM, koneu wrote:
> In Xdefs.h, Bool is typedef'd as int (= at least 2 bytes, sometimes more,
> depending on the implementation), of which we set the last bit to 1 or 0.
> In the Monitor and Client structures dwm uses,
Hi,
Let me know if this makes sense.
Thanks,
stateless
>From 6b7835c72d91bae7670ec7fab1d7ad1e1f0827cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: sin
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:29:45 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Add crypt.[ch] and update md5sum and sha1sum
Factor out the code from md5sum and sha1sum into a util fun
On 07/07/2013, Markus Teich wrote:
>> Why are these in C?
>
> Because shell scripts tend to run many processes compared to only one
> if you don't fork in the C code?
Is this a matter of efficiency alone?
> Let me know if this makes sense.
This is a bit too much. The only changes I will allow in
{md5,sha1}.c are a change from `struct md5*` to `void*`.
That should be entirely sufficient.
> Is this a matter of efficiency alone?
The C implementation is straightforward and short. It doesn't get
simpler if you wrote it in a higher level language. Your shell script
is IMO much harder to understand.
Ahoy,
the attached patch fixes a tiny issue with tabbed. When running it
without a command and having it run spawn(), it tried to execute its
window ID as a command. While most people probably don't have
executables called 341123 or the like in their path, I think that is not
exactly intended. The
You could just use sed 10q file.
one more reason to use use proper plan9: bourne shell sucks a lot
compared to rc.
hiro dixit:
>one more reason to use use proper plan9: bourne shell sucks a lot
>compared to rc.
Well nobody uses bourne shell (that thing with U+0060 for COMSUBs
and ^ instead of | as pipe character) any more.
Welcome to the 21ₛₜ century.
Although I freely admit that POSIX shell also sucks and
20 matches
Mail list logo
