On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 08:39:14AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Chris Bannister [05-13-14 05:35]:
> [...]
> > You forgot 'eggs it' = exit :)
> > and'artic'= arctic
> >
> > > Erik
> > > (Scurrying for cover)
>
> Well, I still close the "hood" of my automobile/truck and put th
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:58:36AM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
...
>
> Although, I still wonder why American English *HAS* to be different! The
> phrase "only in America!" springs to mind here.
>
As an unknowing U.S. citizen I wonder about that "only in America".
Are there no distinctions betw
* Chris Bannister [05-13-14 05:35]:
[...]
> You forgot 'eggs it' = exit :)
> and'artic'= arctic
>
> > Erik
> > (Scurrying for cover)
Well, I still close the "hood" of my automobile/truck and put the "bonnet"
on my girl. We will ignore "spanner" for the moment. :^)
--
(paka)Pat
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:06:21AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> increasing prevalence of this odd usage. It's almost as bad as adding
> apostrophes for plurals or third-person present tense verbs (e.g.
> "apostrope's" instead of "apostrophes" or "He let's his dog out" vs.
> "He lets his dog out."
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:52:22PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 12.05.14 21:28, Mark Filipak wrote:
> > I listen to the BBC almost all the time. I think the hosts butcher
> > English as thoroughly as the average American.
>
> True, the modern BBC's English on its website is egregious, wit
On 12.05.14 21:28, Mark Filipak wrote:
> I listen to the BBC almost all the time. I think the hosts butcher
> English as thoroughly as the average American.
True, the modern BBC's English on its website is egregious, with
adjectives morphing to nouns, as in "The abducted Nigeria girls ...",
grati
On 2014/5/12 7:58 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:48:48PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:12:54AM -0400, Mark Filipak wrote:
>>> On 2014/5/11 11:08 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>> -snip-
More worrying are the strange ammendments that American Engli
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:48:48PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:12:54AM -0400, Mark Filipak wrote:
> > On 2014/5/11 11:08 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > -snip-
> > > More worrying are the strange ammendments that American English is
> > > imposing (or has imposed) on us peo
* Derek Martin [05-12-14 12:10]:
[...]
> And also FWIW, the one thing I was quite serious about was having had
> too much rum. =8^)
Yes, Dos Equis *is* preferable as I have less questions to post about
recent events :^).
--
(paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @pti
On Fri,May 09 04:24:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote:
> * Guy Gold [2014.05.09 15:43]:
> > If," vim -c ':r /path/to/file' " is used, what happens in mutt
> > is, vim gets two files to edit, "/path/to/file" and
> > /tmp/mutt-muttfile.being.edited.
> Not at all. Did you try it?
> You would have two files t
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 03:08:58PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Iiuc, the "comment" pertains to the "comment" rather than the
> > "syntax of send hook", ie: correct usage of the English "written"
> > word.
>
> I believe he understood that and was making a joke, i.e. in English
> should the si
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:12:54AM -0400, Mark Filipak wrote:
> On 2014/5/11 11:08 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> -snip-
> > More worrying are the strange ammendments that American English is
> > imposing (or has imposed) on us people who speak the proper English!
>
> I'm sorry, but as an American I
While I'm glad you've got your syntax working, it is often easier (and more
flexible) to move tricky shell incantations off into a script.
As an example, I run a specialish vim incantation as my mutt editor. My muttrc
just says:
set editor=muttedit
and "muttedit" is a script in my bin dire
On Sat,May 10 06:49:PM, Derek Martin wrote:
> Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why is "'messed'" in single
> quotes here? I see people do this increasingly often, and I don't get
> why.
Are you a coder, Derek? I use single-quotes when I'm coding because it's
faster; I don't have to hit t
On 2014/5/11 11:08 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
-snip-
> More worrying are the strange ammendments that American English is
> imposing (or has imposed) on us people who speak the proper English!
I'm sorry, but as an American I have to come out of lurk mode for this...
What you tried to write, Chris
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 07:54:16AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Guy Gold [05-11-14 07:38]:
> > On Sat,May 10 06:49:PM, Derek Martin wrote:
> > > Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why is "'messed'" in single
> > > quotes here? I see people do this increasingly often, and I don't get
>
* Guy Gold [05-11-14 07:38]:
> On Sat,May 10 06:49:PM, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why is "'messed'" in single
> > quotes here? I see people do this increasingly often, and I don't get
> > why.
>
> Are you implying that the single quotes should have been
> e
Derek:
On Sat,May 10 06:49:PM, Derek Martin wrote:
> Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: Why is "'messed'" in single
> quotes here? I see people do this increasingly often, and I don't get
> why.
Are you implying that the single quotes should have been
escaped then ? ;)
--
GG
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:37:21PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
> The reason I'm using the !cat option is - like you mentioned, if
> I only use ":r /tmp/file", then, things get 'messed' up. And, while
> in mutt, I find out that I'm editing two files, not good..
Mostly I reply here due to a curiosity: W
On Fri,May 09 04:24:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote:
>
> Not at all. Did you try it?
>
> You would have two files to edit if you did:
>
> vim -c ":e /path/to/file"
>
> or
>
> vim /path/to/file
>
> But not with:
>
> vim -c ":r /path/to/file"
>
I did try it, and arrived to the !cat idea for that r
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 15:43]:
> If," vim -c ':r /path/to/file' " is used, what happens in mutt
> is, vim gets two files to edit, "/path/to/file" and
> /tmp/mutt-muttfile.being.edited.
Not at all. Did you try it?
You would have two files to edit if you did:
vim -c ":e /path/to/file"
or
vim /p
On Fri,May 09 03:14:PM, Jean-Rene David wrote:
> * Guy Gold [2014.05.09 13:58]:
> > send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= "vim -c \":r \!cat
> > /path/to/file\""'
>
> Is it me or is this a useless use of cat?
>
> vim -c ':r !cat /path/to/file' <=> vim -c ':r /path/to/file'
Yes, and no.
* Guy Gold [2014.05.09 13:58]:
> send-hook '~t...@domain.com' 'set editor= "vim -c \":r \!cat
> /path/to/file\""'
Is it me or is this a useless use of cat?
vim -c ':r !cat /path/to/file' <=> vim -c ':r /path/to/file'
--
JR
On Fri,May 09 02:58:PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>
> In my experience, I found it is easier to escape nested quotes instead
> of mixing multiple types of quotes. Maybe you can replace the single
> quotes with escaped double quotes. You might also need to quote the
> whole "set editor=..." bit.
Thank y
Hi Guy,
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:37:21PM -0400, Guy Gold wrote:
>
> The usage of "-c ':r !cat /tmp/file'" does solve the issue of
> editing two files, but, I cannot seem to get the send-hook correct,
> and depending on how/where I place my quotes, I get different
> errors. -
> Which is troubli
On Fri,May 09 12:24:AM, Christian Brabandt wrote:
>
> I am surprised, this works for your normal editor command. From my
> understanding, Vim should try to open 2 files, namely ':r !cat /tmp/bla'
> and the /tmp/mutt-... (which is your actual mail template.
>
> To make this work, you should at l
Hi Guy!
On Do, 08 Mai 2014, Guy Gold wrote:
> Greetings List.
>
> I'm trying to add this command:
>
> vim -c ':r !cat /tmp/file' to be used in a send hook :
>
> send-hook ~t...@domain.com set editor= "vim ':r !cat /tmp/bla'"
>
> The contents of /tmp/file should then be 'cat > ' into the new
Greetings List.
I'm trying to add this command:
vim -c ':r !cat /tmp/file' to be used in a send hook :
send-hook ~t...@domain.com set editor= "vim ':r !cat /tmp/bla'"
The contents of /tmp/file should then be 'cat > ' into the new
email.
While the above works fine from the main declaration in
28 matches
Mail list logo
