On Saturday, June 16 at 02:09 AM, quoth Vladimír Marek:
The other problem with making it static is that it prevents the
compiler from doing certain kinds of optimization. That's not a
performance-critical function, but...
Unmeasurable.
Of course. It's hardly a *serious* complaint on my part.
On 2007-06-15 17:18:14 -0400, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre typed (on Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:42:18PM +0200):
> | On 2007-06-15 08:19:15 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> | > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:01:21AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> | > > If your vi regards something like a failed
On 2007-06-15 14:25:29 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> It's not broken. The application developer has the right to use any
> exit status he wants.
However in POSIX (and even before POSIX), a nonzero value means an
unsuccessful termination. If the application developer chose to return
a nonzero value
On Jun 15 at 08:03, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:31:22PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 13 at 06:03 PM, quoth Jean-Pierre Radley:
> > >Under Posix 2004 rules, I'm not sure what exit status vi will
> > >present, but the vi on all variants of Unix from SCO, as
On 2007-06-15 17:51:52 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> IIRC, the POSIX standard mandates the exit status of "standard
> utilities" -- an author of a program which is not a "standard utility"
> can use the exit status in whatever way is convenient. It could
> be used to pass interesting numerical info
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:34:46PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Mutt CAN NOT make assumptions about what the exit status means.
>
> The only way to avoid making assumptions is to follow what the
> standards say (regarding all exit status values as equivalent is also
> an assumption). And POSI
On Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 12:46, Mike Hunter wrote:
> On Jun 15 at 08:03, Derek Martin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:31:22PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 13 at 06:03 PM, quoth Jean-Pierre Radley:
> > > >Under Posix 2004 rules, I'm not sure what exit status vi wi
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:50:22PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > No, that's not correct. Strictly speaking, the shell assumes an exit
> > status of 0 evaluates to TRUE, and any non-zero exit status evaluates
> > to FALSE. Any interpretation about whether that means success or
> > failure is o
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:07:01AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > What do people think about allowing the user to specify in their muttrc
> > what values do and do not constitute a fatal error coming from their
> > editor? It seems to me mutt *should* react if it is told there's been a
> > fatal
[...]
> I don't think having some editor_error_code configuration list is
> substantially easier for users than
>
> #!/bin/sh
> vim "$@"; true
>
> The script approach, on the other hand, is a lot simpler for mutt.
+1
Writing shell wrappers is in unix so easy, why not just define &
document mutt
> > #!/bin/sh
> > vim "$@"; true
>
> This is no better than ignoring errors entirely, without even
> bothering to check to see if the file changed.
You mentioned that the file has changed. Someone else might wish to
ignore first three lines which contain message date and which is set
automaticall
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:52:49PM +0200, Vladimír Marek wrote:
> > > #!/bin/sh
> > > vim "$@"; true
> >
> > This is no better than ignoring errors entirely, without even
> > bothering to check to see if the file changed.
>
> You mentioned that the file has changed. Someone else might wish to
> i
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Vladimír Marek wrote:
> Writing shell wrappers is in unix so easy, why not just define &
> document mutt behavior and let mutt user to tune his editor to his needs
Because it requires that the user learn to write shell programs. Just
because you can, does
On Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 01:41, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Saturday, June 16 at 02:09 AM, quoth Vladimír Marek:
>> Why not, if you believe that it's worth of six lines instead of one.
>
> Well, so my thinking there (and I'm not an official mutt developer, I'm just
> a guy with opinions) is base
Derek Martin typed (on Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:03:47PM -0400):
|
| It does not apply to other system commands, because:
|
| - The standards assume that "standard utilities" have a non-zero
| exit status when an error condition has occured
Depends on the command. My man page for grep|egrep|
* Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-16 13:59]:
> Using this script method, the user has (or may have) no reason to
> think his edit session failed. Mutt always gets an exit status of 0,
> and does not check to see if the file was changed. The user will
> naturally assume that everything w
* David Woodfall [Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:07:50 +0100]:
> When entering an mbox from a folder, and then exiting back to the folder,
> presently the cursor returns to the top of the folder. It would be nice if
> the cursor remained opposite the mbox exited from, in the same way that
> when browsing an
On Jun 16 at 10:07, Brendan Cully wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 12:46, Mike Hunter wrote:
> >
> > What do people think about allowing the user to specify in their muttrc
> > what values do and do not constitute a fatal error coming from their
> > editor? It seems to me mutt *should* reac
* Jean-Pierre Radley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-16 15:33]:
> Derek Martin typed (on Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:03:47PM -0400):
> | It does not apply to other system commands, because:
> |
> | - The standards assume that "standard utilities" have a non-zero
> | exit status when an error condit
Holger Weiss typed (on Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:34:16PM +0200):
| * Jean-Pierre Radley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-16 15:33]:
| > Derek Martin typed (on Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:03:47PM -0400):
| > | It does not apply to other system commands, because:
| > |
| > | - The standards assume that "sta
On 2007-06-16 14:00:20 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Vladimír Marek wrote:
> > Writing shell wrappers is in unix so easy, why not just define &
> > document mutt behavior and let mutt user to tune his editor to his needs
>
> Because it requires that the use
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:50:12PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-06-16 14:00:20 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Vladimír Marek wrote:
> > > Writing shell wrappers is in unix so easy, why not just define &
> > > document mutt behavior and let mutt u
On 2007-06-16 13:18:57 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:50:22PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > No, that's not correct. Strictly speaking, the shell assumes an exit
> > > status of 0 evaluates to TRUE, and any non-zero exit status evaluates
> > > to FALSE. Any interpret
On 2007-06-16 13:59:13 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> Only if you're a programmer. Lots of people who use Mutt are not.
Only people who use vi under Solaris 10 or SCO are affected. And one
can assume that these people are programmers (and for the very few,
if any, who are not programmers, one can a
On 2007-06-16 16:58:24 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> One may have many reasons to learn to use vi, whereas one may have no
> reason to learn to write shell scripts, or any other programming
> language. Programming should *NEVER, EVER, EVER* be a requirement to
> make Mutt (or any other user applica
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:34:27PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > The shell treats nonzero values as if they were errors (e.g. "set -e"
> > > makes the shell script exit in such a case).
> >
> > Sorry, that's not correct. The shell with set -e treats nonzero
> > values as errors. Otherwise
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 11:51:34PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-06-16 13:59:13 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Only if you're a programmer. Lots of people who use Mutt are not.
>
> Only people who use vi under Solaris 10 or SCO are affected. And one
> can assume that these people are pr
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:09:04AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-06-16 16:58:24 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > One may have many reasons to learn to use vi, whereas one may have no
> > reason to learn to write shell scripts, or any other programming
> > language. Programming should *NEVE
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:10:43PM -0400, Mike Hunter wrote:
> My one concern is that I can't seem to find any documentation that ANY
> common editor actually endorses a return value that signifies a fatal
> error...but maybe we should encourage them :)
SCO are dying anyway, so I don't think that
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:30:03PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> NO INHERENT MEANING TO ANY EXIT CODE, IN THE GENERAL CASE. THERE IS ONLY
> A CONVENTION ON HOW TO INTERPRET THEM. Many programs conform to this
Which suggests that programs which violate the convention should be fixed.
There's a co
On 2007-06-16 18:46:01 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:09:04AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Unfortunately this was already the case: one *needs* to write a wrapper
> > to avoid invalid sequences or unprintable characters to be given to the
> > editor. And this is much m
31 matches
Mail list logo
