> Hi Sebastian,
>
> I'm sorry it's taken a while to follow up with you.
No worries. It's a small and (somewhat) insignificant patch. I figured
someone would see it eventually, and even if they didn't, hopefully
anyone running into the issue I was facing would be able to find my post
when Google-in
At 2025-02-16T18:52:49-0400, Sebastien Peterson-Boudreau wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian,
> >
> > I'm sorry it's taken a while to follow up with you.
> No worries. It's a small and (somewhat) insignificant patch. I figured
> someone would see it eventually, and even if they didn't, hopefully
> anyone runn
At 2025-02-16T04:37:46+0100, onf wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvAbjfJ0x0
>
> Take note that (IIRC) the conclusion of research surrounding the
> Prisoner's Dilemma has been that the best strategy is to reciprocate,
> but also sometimes forgive.
Yes. The conclusion of the video, IIR
On Sun Feb 16, 2025 at 4:25 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2025-02-16T04:19:20+0100, onf wrote:
> > On Sun Feb 16, 2025 at 4:01 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > With the quotation marks, it seemed to lie toward the "mind-reading"
> > > end of the speculative continuum.
> >
> > Tha
At 2025-02-16T04:19:20+0100, onf wrote:
> On Sun Feb 16, 2025 at 4:01 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > At 2025-02-16T03:50:30+0100, onf wrote:
> > > Seems like you are assuming bad faith where there is none. I was
> > > not trying to characterize your train of thought.
> >
> > With the quotat
Hi Branden,
On Sun Feb 16, 2025 at 4:01 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2025-02-16T03:50:30+0100, onf wrote:
> > Seems like you are assuming bad faith where there is none. I was not
> > trying to characterize your train of thought.
>
> With the quotation marks, it seemed to lie toward the
On Sun Feb 16, 2025 at 3:17 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2025-02-16T02:44:12+0100, onf wrote:
> > Seems like you found yourself in a familiar situation:
> > "This under-documented code seems stupid. Was the person who wrote it
> > really that stupid, or am I missing something?"
>
> Pr
Hi onf,
At 2025-02-16T03:50:30+0100, onf wrote:
> On Sun Feb 16, 2025 at 3:17 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > At 2025-02-16T02:44:12+0100, onf wrote:
> > > Seems like you found yourself in a familiar situation:
> > > "This under-documented code seems stupid. Was the person who
> > > wrote
On Sun Feb 16, 2025 at 3:50 AM CET, onf wrote:
> > [The GNU pic(1) page unfortunately is one of our "diff" pages (like eqn(1))
> > [...]
>
> [...]
> Then there is also eqn(1):
I can't read...
At 2025-02-16T02:44:12+0100, onf wrote:
> On Sun Feb 16, 2025 at 2:09 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > At 2025-01-29T00:57:19-0400, sebastien peterson boudreau wrote:
> > > The quotes for `i'th and `i+1'th are very important because the
> > > parser will reject input that uses two right/neutr
On Sun Feb 16, 2025 at 2:09 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2025-01-29T00:57:19-0400, sebastien peterson boudreau wrote:
> > The quotes for `i'th and `i+1'th are very important because the parser
> > will reject input that uses two right/neutral quotes/apostrophes.
>
> You're right! Back i
Hi Sebastian,
I'm sorry it's taken a while to follow up with you.
At 2025-01-29T00:57:19-0400, sebastien peterson boudreau wrote:
> The quotes for `i'th and `i+1'th are very important because the parser
> will reject input that uses two right/neutral quotes/apostrophes.
You're right! Back in No
The quotes for `i'th and `i+1'th are very important because the parser
will reject input that uses two right/neutral quotes/apostrophes. The
double quotes \[lq] and \[rq] were also adjusted as it looked like a
mistake.
---
src/preproc/pic/pic.1.man | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 de
13 matches
Mail list logo
