2011/5/3 Ole Tange :
> Following a recent discussion on the list I have given some thought to
> making an option --nest.
>
> --nest
My first thought was --multiply (as in multiply list 1 with list 2)
but I agree that --nest (as in nested for loops) is better.
> Nest argument files. This changes t
>> Following a recent discussion on the list I have given some thought to
>> making an option --nest.
> My first thought was --multiply (as in multiply list 1 with list 2)
> but I agree that --nest (as in nested for loops) is better.
Hmm... along the lines of --multiply I'd have said --outer as i
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Rhys Ulerich wrote:
>>> Following a recent discussion on the list I have given some thought to
>>> making an option --nest.
>
>> My first thought was --multiply (as in multiply list 1 with list 2)
>> but I agree that --nest (as in nested for loops) is better.
>
> Hm
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Hans Schou wrote:
> 2011/5/3 Ole Tange :
>> Do you have a better idea for the syntax? Should it be default (and
>> thus the current behaviour would require you to use --xapply)?
>
> I thought --nest was default. I suggest that --keeporder is changed to
> be the one
I consider changing the default behaviour of and multiple -a. The
current behaviour will be available with --xapply.
If you use or multiple -a and you believe it is a bad idea to
change the default behaviour NOW is the time to speak up.
/Ole
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Ole Tange wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Hans Schou wrote:
2011/5/3 Ole Tange :
--keeporder has nothing to do with --nest. It keep the output in the
same order whether or not there are multiple -a. To understand
--keeporder compare the output of there two:
paral
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Hans Schou wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2011, Ole Tange wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Hans Schou wrote:
>>> 2011/5/3 Ole Tange :
>
>> --keeporder has nothing to do with --nest. It keeps the output in the
>> same order whether or not there are multiple -a. To
