> -Original Message-
> From: Aled Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 September 1999 16:51
> It does apply in the UK - two spaces is pretty standard. I guess this
> isn't an Americanism (for once!)
Not everywhere in the UK, or maybe it's an age related thing. I was never
taught
> -Original Message-
> From: Aled Morris [mailto:al...@routers.co.uk]
> Sent: 01 September 1999 16:51
> It does apply in the UK - two spaces is pretty standard. I guess this
> isn't an Americanism (for once!)
Not everywhere in the UK, or maybe it's an age related thing. I was never
taugh
On Wed 1999-09-01 (16:40), Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> > :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> > :Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
>
> > I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
> > It *had* to
On Wed 1999-09-01 (16:40), Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> > :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> > :Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
>
> > I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
> > It *had* t
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
>> :>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
>> :> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
>> :
>> :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
>> :>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
>> :> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
>> :
>> :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
> :> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
> :
> :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> :Even in the digital age, I've alw
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
> :> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
> :
> :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> :Even in the digital age, I've al
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> > I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
> > reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
> > testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case handling
>
> Also so that common settings ca
> I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
> reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
> testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case handling
Also so that common settings can be added. Besides "yes" and "no" there
could be ot
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> > I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
> > reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
> > testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case handling
>
> Also so that common settings c
> I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
> reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
> testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case handling
Also so that common settings can be added. Besides "yes" and "no" there
could be o
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 16:46:11 MST, Doug wrote:
> Hoping I'm running out of nits,
:-)
Hi Doug,
I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case h
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 16:46:11 MST, Doug wrote:
> Hoping I'm running out of nits,
:-)
Hi Doug,
I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:40:20 +0200, Leif Neland wrote:
> if isyes ${thisvariable}
>
> case $1 of
> [Yy][Ee][Ss])
> exit 0
> ;;
> *)
> exit 1
> ;;
> esac
I hope you mean "in" instead of "of" and "return" instead of "exit". :-)
I like this. One of the reasons I like it so much is becaus
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:40:20 +0200, Leif Neland wrote:
> if isyes ${thisvariable}
>
> case $1 of
> [Yy][Ee][Ss])
> exit 0
> ;;
> *)
> exit 1
> ;;
> esac
I hope you mean "in" instead of "of" and "return" instead of "exit". :-)
I like this. One of the reasons I like it so much is becau
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
> required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
> which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
>
> Specifically, case statements look mor
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
> required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
> which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
>
> Specifically, case statements look mo
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Doug wrote:
> Ben Smithurst wrote:
> >
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
> >
> > Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
> > values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
> > :-)
>
>
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Doug wrote:
> Ben Smithurst wrote:
> >
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
> >
> > Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
> > values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
> > :-)
>
>
Ben Smithurst wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> > Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
>
> Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
> values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
> :-)
*sigh* I am constantly flabbergasted by what people t
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
Maybe I missed it, but what exactly is the reason for that
change? I do not like it, it makes the case lines look
strange. And I think there was a policy that style should
not be changed if there's no good re
Ben Smithurst wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> > Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
>
> Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
> values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
> :-)
*sigh* I am constantly flabbergasted by what people
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
Maybe I missed it, but what exactly is the reason for that
change? I do not like it, it makes the case lines look
strange. And I think there was a policy that style should
not be changed if there's no good r
Doug wrote:
> Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
:-)
--
Ben Smithurst| PGP: 0x99392F7D
b...@scientia.demon.co.uk | key available from key
Doug wrote:
> Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
:-)
--
Ben Smithurst| PGP: 0x99392F7D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | key available from keyservers
> On Sat, Aug 28, 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> > A sentence ends
> > .Ar here .
> > But this new one has a single space preceeding it.
>
>Does adding a space after the `.' at the end of your line
> help?
Please, no trailing white space :-)!
Seriously, I think that all of the current mdoc
Cleaned up this post a little for the final (?) version of rc.diff. Back
by popular demand, double spaces after the periods! Well, partly by popular
demand and partly because I think it bouys my argument for a space after
the case options. :) Note the changed URL for the real file. Without
> On Sat, Aug 28, 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> > A sentence ends
> > .Ar here .
> > But this new one has a single space preceeding it.
>
>Does adding a space after the `.' at the end of your line
> help?
Please, no trailing white space :-)!
Seriously, I think that all of the current mdoc
Cleaned up this post a little for the final (?) version of rc.diff. Back
by popular demand, double spaces after the periods! Well, partly by popular
demand and partly because I think it bouys my argument for a space after
the case options. :) Note the changed URL for the real file. Without
Today Doug wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
>
> Actually I took that class in Jr. High School, way back in '77. It was
> the
> only good advice my Jr. High guidance counselor gave me.
>
> Doug
When I was in 8th gr
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
Actually I took that class in Jr. High School, way back in '77. It was
the
only good advice my Jr. High guidance counselor gave me.
Doug
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
wit
Nik Clayton wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > Sentences are supposed to have two spaces before you start the next
> > > sentence.
> >
> > Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> >
Today Doug wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
>
> Actually I took that class in Jr. High School, way back in '77. It was the
> only good advice my Jr. High guidance counselor gave me.
>
> Doug
When I was in 8th grad
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
Actually I took that class in Jr. High School, way back in '77. It was the
only good advice my Jr. High guidance counselor gave me.
Doug
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "u
Nik Clayton wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > Sentences are supposed to have two spaces before you start the next
> > > sentence.
> >
> > Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> >
:>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
:> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
:
:I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
:Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
:for better reading
:>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
:> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
:
:I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
:Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
:for better readin
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> A sentence ends
> .Ar here .
> But this new one has a single space preceeding it.
Does adding a space after the `.' at the end of your line
help?
--
|Chris Costello
|**FLASH** Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery.
`
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> A sentence ends
> .Ar here .
> But this new one has a single space preceeding it.
Does adding a space after the `.' at the end of your line
help?
--
|Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|**FLASH** Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery.
`
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 05:45:05AM -0500, Mike Pritchard wrote:
>
> I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
> for better reading of text. I think that most of our formatting
> tools do this to
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 05:45:05AM -0500, Mike Pritchard wrote:
>
> I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
> for better reading of text. I think that most of our formatting
> tools do this t
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > > -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this
> > > > file
> > > > +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that
> > > > file
>
> > Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
>
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> > > +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
> Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> the digital age it's falle
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > Sentences are supposed to have two spaces before you start the next
> > sentence.
>
> Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> the digital age it's fallen into di
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > > -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> > > > +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
>
> > Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> > the digital age
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> > > +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
> Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> the digital age it's fall
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > Sentences are supposed to have two spaces before you start the next
> > sentence.
>
> Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> the digital age it's fallen into d
Maybe this is nit-picking, too, buth those are just
my 0.02 Euros...
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
I'd prefer to keep it with two spaces
Maybe this is nit-picking, too, buth those are just
my 0.02 Euros...
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
I'd prefer to keep it with two space
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> [ I'm nit-picking here, feel free to ignore ]
A) You're in really good company. :)
B) I expected a lot of nits to be picked on this project, which is
why I wanted to do a "first draft" and solicit comments. I'm not overly
concerned a
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Doug wrote:
>
> Ok, revised diff attached. I made the case indentation change and some
> of
> sheldon's suggestions are incorporated. I also neglected to mention
> previously that I tuned up a few of the comments in the file, as well as
> error output. I also was more
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> [ I'm nit-picking here, feel free to ignore ]
A) You're in really good company. :)
B) I expected a lot of nits to be picked on this project, which is
why I wanted to do a "first draft" and solicit comments. I'm not overly
concerned
[ I'm nit-picking here, feel free to ignore ]
> Doug--- /usr/src/etc/rc Thu Aug 26 20:56:36 1999
> +++ rcFri Aug 27 09:52:39 1999
> @@ -8,24 +8,25 @@
> # and the console is the controlling terminal.
>
> # Note that almost all the user-configurable behavior is no longer in
> -
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Doug wrote:
>
> Ok, revised diff attached. I made the case indentation change and some of
> sheldon's suggestions are incorporated. I also neglected to mention
> previously that I tuned up a few of the comments in the file, as well as
> error output. I also was more ri
Doug wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script
> mods. I
> consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
> with variables to case whereve
> > [...]
> > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > [...]
> >case $? in
> > - 0)
> > + 0 )
> >;;
> > - 2)
> > + 2 )
> >exit 1
> >;;
> > - 4)
> > + 4 )
> >reboot
> >echo "reboo
Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > [...]
> > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > [...]
> > case $? in
> > -0)
> > +0 )
> > ;;
> > -2)
> > +2 )
> > exit 1
> > ;;
>
[ I'm nit-picking here, feel free to ignore ]
> Doug--- /usr/src/etc/rc Thu Aug 26 20:56:36 1999
> +++ rcFri Aug 27 09:52:39 1999
> @@ -8,24 +8,25 @@
> # and the console is the controlling terminal.
>
> # Note that almost all the user-configurable behavior is no longer in
>
Doug wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
> consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
> with variables to case wherever
Sheldon Hearn wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
> required quite a bit of effort, thanks!)
Yeah -- Thanks Doug!
> Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
> used to seeing, and conditionals that do
> > [...]
> > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > [...]
> >case $? in
> > - 0)
> > + 0 )
> >;;
> > - 2)
> > + 2 )
> >exit 1
> >;;
> > - 4)
> > + 4 )
> >reboot
> >echo "rebo
Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > [...]
> > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > [...]
> > case $? in
> > -0)
> > +0 )
> > ;;
> > -2)
> > +2 )
> > exit 1
> > ;;
>
Sheldon Hearn wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
> required quite a bit of effort, thanks!)
Yeah -- Thanks Doug!
> Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
> used to seeing, and conditionals that d
Hi folks,
What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
used to seeing, and conditiona
Hi folks,
What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
used to seeing, and condition
Doug wrote:
If looking at the before and after seperately, the indentation of the case
statements is IMHO bizzare and unlike anything I've seen before...
eg: Changing this:
> if [ "$1" = "autoboot" ]; then
> echo Automatic reboot in progress...
> fsck -p
> case $? in
> 0)
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Why?!? I like the existing "case" style _much_ better,
> it's more readable and emphasizes the structure.
I agree 100%.
> Regards
>Oliver
--
|Chris Costello
|A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.
`-
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> [...]
> 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> [...]
> case $? in
> -0)
> +0 )
> ;;
> -2)
> +2 )
> exit 1
> ;;
> -4)
> +4 )
> rebo
Doug wrote:
If looking at the before and after seperately, the indentation of the case
statements is IMHO bizzare and unlike anything I've seen before...
eg: Changing this:
> if [ "$1" = "autoboot" ]; then
> echo Automatic reboot in progress...
> fsck -p
> case $? in
> 0
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Why?!? I like the existing "case" style _much_ better,
> it's more readable and emphasizes the structure.
I agree 100%.
> Regards
>Oliver
--
|Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't br
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> [...]
> 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> [...]
> case $? in
> -0)
> +0 )
> ;;
> -2)
> +2 )
> exit 1
> ;;
> -4)
> +4 )
> reb
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > >
> > >Why? What's wrong with `value)'?
> >
> > Nothing functionally, but I find case statements much easier to read with
> > the extra whitespace.
>
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> >
> >Why? What's wrong with `value)'?
>
> Nothing functionally, but I find case statements much easier to read with
> the extra whitespace.
Would that not cause problems?
[A-Z]* )
Chris Costello wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script
> > mods. I
> > consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> > variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably c
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
> consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
> with variables t
Greetings,
As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
with variables to case wherever possible. It also does the f
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > >
> > >Why? What's wrong with `value)'?
> >
> > Nothing functionally, but I find case statements much easier to read with
> > the extra whitespace.
>
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> >
> >Why? What's wrong with `value)'?
>
> Nothing functionally, but I find case statements much easier to read with
> the extra whitespace.
Would that not cause problems?
[A-Z]* )
Chris Costello wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
> > consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> > variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably conve
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
> consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
> with variables
Greetings,
As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
with variables to case wherever possible. It also does the
82 matches
Mail list logo
