On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:46:58 -0400
erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
On Sun Sep 2 16:41:20 EDT 2012, gleb.ax...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok. Anyway, no one will write so huge and complicated code (like
sorcery from Source Mage GNU/Linux) in rc.
that's a good thing, right?
- erik
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:10:39 +0100
Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
Changing my default shell from bash to rc caused even terminal windows (let
alone 9term ones) to appear almost instantly on Ubuntu
(9term windows appear instantly on the click).
i'm not sure how ubuntu manages
sorcery is a nice package manager; the only one i've ever actually
liked, but yeah, it's a monster. a short time after i stopped using it
i was interested to see someone report he'd actually reduced the size
of his shell script by converting it from bash to ordinary sh; using
the proper tools
On Wednesday 29 of August 2012 16:10:39 Charles Forsyth wrote:
Changing my default shell from bash to rc caused even terminal windows (let
alone 9term ones) to appear almost instantly on Ubuntu
(9term windows appear instantly on the click).
interactive bash reads, among others,
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:58:45 AM UTC-4, dexen deVries wrote:
On Wednesday 29 of August 2012 16:10:39 Charles Forsyth wrote:
Changing my default shell from bash to rc caused even terminal windows (let
alone 9term ones) to appear almost instantly on Ubuntu
(9term windows appear
On Oct 25, 2012, at 5:08 PM, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
can someone tell me how to speed up poweroff on ubuntu?
Pull the cable and or battery.
G.
On Oct 25, 2012 1:00 PM, Gorka Guardiola pau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 5:08 PM, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
can someone tell me how to speed up poweroff on ubuntu?
Pull the cable and or battery.
G.
Don't use Ubuntu.
--
Veety
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Matthew Veety mve...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012 1:00 PM, Gorka Guardiola pau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 5:08 PM, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
can someone tell me how to speed up poweroff on ubuntu?
Pull the cable and or battery.
G.
a sledgehammer. works for mac os x also.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
can someone tell me how to speed up poweroff on ubuntu?
On Monday 03 of September 2012 09:31:12 Rudolf Sykora wrote:
I too believe that unless the mechanism of autocomplete is well-enough
resolved, rc won't work for many people. I understand the reasons why
readline is not in the shell, but on the other hand I often get angry
when I can't
On 09/01/2012 04:30 AM, Uriel wrote:
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
Just for the record, nothing's changed:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:44:04PM +0200, Uriel wrote:
Where did the Go team say explicitly they are not interested in a
better build system?
2012/9/3 Rudolf Sykora rudolf.syk...@gmail.com:
I too believe that unless the mechanism of autocomplete is well-enough
resolved, rc won't work for many people. I understand the reasons why
readline is not in the shell, but on the other hand I often get angry
when I can't autocomplete.
Some
build your own ui then.
I too believe that unless the mechanism of autocomplete is well-enough
resolved, rc won't work for many people. I understand the reasons why
there is no reason to put readline in the shell. i know i've got at least one
readline implementation kicking around.
And good user interface is an
On Sun Sep 2 16:41:20 EDT 2012, gleb.ax...@gmail.com wrote:
works here:
; for(i in 1 2 3){echo $i;break}
1
Don't work for my 9base rc. Strange.
it wasn't submitted to sources.
continue can be replaced by slightly rewriting your code
Ok. Anyway, no one will write so huge and
(haven't read the thread)
There's some things that rc cannot into:
- break/continue (well, perhabs I can do it a ugly way)
- sane user interface (rlwrap rc won't give you THE TRUE POWER OF AUTOCOMPLETE)
- *nix standarts (no one wants to install plan9port or even 9base only
for running a script)
On Sun Sep 2 11:21:53 EDT 2012, gleb.ax...@gmail.com wrote:
(haven't read the thread)
There's some things that rc cannot into:
- break/continue (well, perhabs I can do it a ugly way)
works here:
; for(i in 1 2 3){echo $i;break}
1
it's a relatively simple change. there's no reason continue
works here:
; for(i in 1 2 3){echo $i;break}
1
Don't work for my 9base rc. Strange.
continue can be replaced by slightly rewriting your code
Ok. Anyway, no one will write so huge and complicated code (like
sorcery from Source Mage GNU/Linux) in rc.
Just for the record, nothing's changed:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:44:04PM +0200, Uriel wrote:
Where did the Go team say explicitly they are not interested in a
better build system?
http://goo.gl/AtBrC
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
Just for the record, nothing's changed:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:44:04PM +0200, Uriel wrote:
Where did the Go team say explicitly they are not interested in a
better build system?
http://goo.gl/AtBrC
A lot has changed,
On Aug 31, 2012 7:15 PM, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Russ is trolling you, uriel.
He is a pretty badass troll.
Lucio De Re lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
All Bashes are equal,
Even this isn't true. Bash is at 4.2 and people still report issues
with 3.x. (Same with gawk; gawk is at 4.0.1, people still send it bug reports
about 3.1.3, which is 10 years old!)
I am not familiar with the use of Bash in Go; I
I am not familiar with the use of Bash in Go; I suspect that they stick
to stuff that will work across Baash versions though.
The difficult bit for argumentative people to grasp is that the Go
Team use features that are portable across bourne-like shells, they
just refuse to commit to that
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 09:41:14AM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
The difficult bit for argumentative people to grasp is that the Go
Team use features that are portable across bourne-like shells, they
just refuse to commit to that level of compatibility. On the one
hand, requiring Bash gives
But as I said, this is not to argument about Go developers' choices:
they do as they see fit
I think their philosophy is sound, not just an arbitrary choice. The
alternative is a commitment that can only be fulfilled by applying
resources best utilised on the focal issue.
For example, the
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:26:26PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
For example, the kerTeX installation relies on an ftp client that
accepts a URL on the command line.
Slight correction: this is not the kerTeX installation, this is sugar
for simplifying installation in the most common cases. The
[Special to Lucio: Email to proxima.alt.za from Google's SMTP servers
is failing; it looks like they're listed in rbl.proxima.alt.za.]
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Lucio De Re lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
But as I said, this is not to argument about Go developers' choices:
they do as they
The basis does
not request ftp.
I apologise for working with too little information. I have long
wanted to have TeX installed for the rare occasions when I want to
explore the TeX Book, so I took a chance. I'm waiting to find the
energy to solve the libc/libm/libl problem I encountered :-)
On 08/28/2012 03:22 PM, dexen deVries wrote:
On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 10:57:06 Rudolf Sykora wrote:
Hello,
I am just curious...
Here
http://9fans.net/archive/2007/11/120
Russ Cox writes he uses bash as his default shell. Does anybody know
the reason? Is this for practicality within the
Changing my default shell from bash to rc caused even terminal windows (let
alone 9term ones) to appear almost instantly on Ubuntu
(9term windows appear instantly on the click).
We slowly standardise on slow standards, with degradation everywhere.
For compatibility I use ash in xterm and rc in 9term ;)
I have an rc script, allowing u ./configure, u make, u man, ...
% cat bin/u
#!/bin/rc
SHELL=/bin/sh
path=(/usr/local/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/sbin /usr/bin /sbin /bin
/usr/bin/X11 /usr/games)
MANPAGER=/bin/cat
exec $*
On 29 August 2012 16:22, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
For compatibility I
The minimal being a subset of POSIX.2 for the tools,
Maybe I'm pushing too hard here, but even Posix isn't followed by all
implementations of /bin/sh (no, I'm not sure, but there is no proof
possible, as the future is also a factor). Thing is, Bash is
well-defined, by a single implementation.
Hello,
I am just curious...
Here
http://9fans.net/archive/2007/11/120
Russ Cox writes he uses bash as his default shell. Does anybody know
the reason? Is this for practicality within the linux environment? Or
has he found rc too limiting?
Ruda
because he uses a mac.
On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 10:57:06 Rudolf Sykora wrote:
Hello,
I am just curious...
Here
http://9fans.net/archive/2007/11/120
Russ Cox writes he uses bash as his default shell. Does anybody know
the reason? Is this for practicality within the linux environment? Or
has he found rc too
FWIW, i'm using bash as the interactive shell too, in `konsole' terminal
emulator, because of bash' interactive line edition and command history.
9term
doesn't fit me.
all scripting -- both standalone and in mkfiles -- goes in rc, thou.
Russ uses bash because it is uniformly crappy
On 28 August 2012 15:07, Lucio De Re lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
Russ uses bash because it is uniformly crappy across all architectures
he has an interest in. There's a similar conversation going on in the
go-nuts user group on google. It is illuminating.
I have been unable to locate the
Anyway, I do not understand how uniform crappiness can be advantageous...
The issue raised on Go-Nuts is that Bash shouldn't be used for
installing Go, /bin/sh should be used instead. The response is that
Bash is the most uniformly implemented of the /bin/sh's out there and
that none of the
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:10:39PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Anyway, I do not understand how uniform crappiness can be advantageous...
The issue raised on Go-Nuts is that Bash shouldn't be used for
installing Go, /bin/sh should be used instead. The response is that
Bash is the most
On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 16:10:39 Lucio De Re wrote:
Anyway, I do not understand how uniform crappiness can be advantageous...
The issue raised on Go-Nuts is that Bash shouldn't be used for
installing Go, /bin/sh should be used instead. The response is that
Bash is the most uniformly
env bash - posix 2.0
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/aC7Qr1qtZ2I
ypical Go shit there. If the scripts are so complicated that it's a
pain in the ass to find a way to run them, fix the stupid scripts.
They did, by building the go command.
Do you think you can provide any guarantees that the subset of /bin/sh
features common to all current instances of
i don't know. but the problem isn't the consistency of rc. byron's
rc doesn't count. that's like saying the bourne shell is not consistent
because of bash.
But I am saying that, and I believe that is what motivates the Go Team
to continue using Bash. They know that Bash works. They also
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Or are you oriented towards kiloLOCs of test code to see which
features are implemented and provide compatability a la autoconf?
Excellent example of a false dilemma. I'm oriented towards exerting the
effort to make something
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Rudolf Sykora rudolf.syk...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Howdy.
I am just curious...
Here
http://9fans.net/archive/2007/11/120
Russ Cox writes he uses bash as his default shell. Does anybody know
the reason? Is this for practicality within the linux
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Or are you oriented towards kiloLOCs of test code to see which
features are implemented and provide compatability a la autoconf?
Excellent example of a false
And rc is not perfect. I've always felt like the 'if not' stuff was a kludge.
no, it's certainly not. (i wouldn't call if not a kludge—just ugly. the
haahr/rakitzis es' if makes more sense, even if it's wierder.)
but the real question with rc is, what would you fix?
i can only think of a
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Or are you oriented towards kiloLOCs of test code to see which
features are implemented and provide compatability a la autoconf?
Excellent example of a false dilemma. I'm oriented towards exerting the
effort to make something
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:48:39PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Wonderful! Please point me to your new programming language so I can
have a look?
I don't think it would do you any good, since you are apparently unable
to differentiate between programming languages and build systems.
So are
perhaps (let's hope) someone else has better ideas.
The Inferno shell was (is) slick!
++L
On Tue Aug 28 11:33:06 EDT 2012, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
perhaps (let's hope) someone else has better ideas.
The Inferno shell was (is) slick!
and iirc, the slickness depends on limbo.
- erik
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Sure, feel free to make something that isn't shitty, there's plenty
out there that can be improved. The machinery to install Go (from
sources) is hardly the most important amongst them.
The Go team has already explicitly stated
Solution: replace
the #!/bin/sh with #!/usr/bin/env -c /bin/bash. Why not?
Because there are plenty of systems out there without env or bash.
so what's the reason for this argument on 9fans? is it that it makes
building go on plan 9 harder?
- erik
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:48:39PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Wonderful! Please point me to your new programming language so I can
have a look?
I don't think it would do you any good, since you are apparently unable
to
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:41:05AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
so what's the reason for this argument on 9fans? is it that it makes
building go on plan 9 harder?
I think it started out with rc users defending their purity of essence.
I'm just an Unattached Lensman with the Galactic
Solution: replace
the #!/bin/sh with #!/usr/bin/env -c /bin/bash. Why not?
Because there are plenty of systems out there without env or bash.
Worth a try, though! There is very little shell code left in the Go
release. Maybe I'll give it a try on my pristine NetBSD machine.
But note that
great, it's becoming a pissing contest.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Do you think you can provide any guarantees that the subset of /bin/sh
features common to all current instances of /bin/sh is adequate to
build a moderately demanding open source package?
Yes. This is what is done by the R.I.S.K.
Yes. This is what is done by the R.I.S.K. framework used for building
KerGIS and kerTeX.
I'm pretty sure that R.I.S.K has more than 2,250 lines of code. That's
the LOC count of \.(ba)?sh$ stuff in the Go tree. Also, nobody seemed
to mention that Go also ships with rc files to build on Plan 9...
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:15:35PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Oh no, I can't. Please, by all means, point me to whatever it is that
you have produced that demonstrates your prowess in this area so that
I can learn more.
you sound upset
Irrelevant.
The topic at hand is not irrelevant to
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:05:04PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
But note that even if it does work, it is still not possible for the
Go Team to release the scripts as /bin/sh scripts because, as you have
clearly not yet grasped, not all /bin/sh instances out there can be
shown to be compatible
My only actual statement is that a better
solution would be de-shitting the build process so that it doesn't
require such a precise set of software to operate.
Does that translate into being able to supply an example of such a
de-shitting process the Go Team could and should have followed? An
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:19:52PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Does that translate into being able to supply an example of such a
de-shitting process the Go Team could and should have followed? An
irresistible paragon of building prowess? Something even the autoconf
people would be tempted
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:15:35PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Oh no, I can't. Please, by all means, point me to whatever it is that
you have produced that demonstrates your prowess in this area so that
I can learn more.
you
On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 11:26:19 erik quanstrom wrote:
And rc is not perfect. I've always felt like the 'if not' stuff was a
kludge.
no, it's certainly not. (i wouldn't call if not a kludge—just ugly. the
haahr/rakitzis es' if makes more sense, even if it's wierder.)
but the real
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:50:27PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
You are conflating bootstrapping the language with the language's
build system. The go command is actually quite nice.
Also, the go command is useless unless the bootstrap build system can
construct it. I'm not conflating
One last thing:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:50:27PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
You are conflating bootstrapping the language with the language's
build system. The go command is actually quite nice.
Also, the go command is
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:48:39PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
So are you saying that because they use bash to build the system, the
language is shitty? Or just the build system is shitty?
I have other issues with Go as a
Well, if you could explain a) how it's currently broken, and b) how a
'corrected' version would be useful, others might be more sympathetic
to your concerns. From most perspectives, it doesn't appear broken at
all; it works fine, it's just not what you would have done.
Speak for yourself,
[Since the previous one did not reach the list (?), I send it once more]
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:12:15PM +0300, Aram H?v?rneanu wrote:
Yes. This is what is done by the R.I.S.K. framework used for building
KerGIS and kerTeX.
I'm pretty sure that R.I.S.K has more than 2,250 lines of code.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Sure, feel free to make something that isn't shitty, there's plenty
out there that can be improved. The machinery to install Go (from
sources) is hardly the most
On Aug 29, 2012 2:14 AM, Jeremy Jackins jeremyjack...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if you could explain a) how it's currently broken, and b) how a
'corrected' version would be useful, others might be more sympathetic
to your concerns. From most perspectives, it doesn't appear broken at
all; it
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:09:13AM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Well, if you could explain a) how it's currently broken, and b) how a
'corrected' version would be useful, others might be more sympathetic
to your concerns. From most perspectives, it doesn't appear broken at
all; it works fine, it's
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:12:15PM +0300, Aram H?v?rneanu wrote:
Yes. This is what is done by the R.I.S.K. framework used for building
KerGIS and kerTeX.
I'm pretty sure that R.I.S.K has more than 2,250 lines of code. That's
the LOC count of \.(ba)?sh$ stuff in the Go tree. Also, nobody
76 matches
Mail list logo