On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Lucio Chiappetti
<lu...@lambrate.inaf.it> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Thomas Adam wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:14PM +0200, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
>>>
>>> is <<< a perlism, or a typo for more customary << ?
>>
>>
>> In shell, <<< is a here-string.
>
>
> I wasn't aware of the distinction between here-documents and here-strings (I
> had to check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_document), I've always used
> only the former.
>
>>> Does this apply to ANY occurrences which in your new scheme will use the
>>> backslash like the old AddToFunc followed by lots of + I lines ?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
I think this is a mistake. I've read through the doc you've put out
twice, and i cannot see any compelling reason to change things. For my
purposes, the expressiveness of what's there now is an asset we should
retain - look at your proposal...
function -n myfunc <<EOF
i:athing
EOF
what if myfunc didn't do 'athing' properly? how is that handled?
i don't feel as though you're thinking about this properly.
It's also a concern that we have seen:
o fvwm stale for quite some time
o fvwm forked to mvwm (what happened there)?
o fvwm moved to github - why? no one asked for that
o fvwm website redesigned - no one asked for that
If all these werent enough, now we've got a change of config to contend with?
I am not pleased.
Ethan
