On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Joe Mistachkin sql...@mistachkin.com
wrote:
Works great. I made a couple style tweaks, including adding some CSS and
moving the new elements out one level. I'm not sure if my CSS is the best
choice, please feel free to enhance the styling.
Looks good to
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
In JS there are only 2 scopes: global and local function scope, so that
(var e) behaves as if it's declared outside of the for loop, whether or not
it really is. Kinda silly, i know.
Had to go clarify that for my own
On Sep 28, 2014 12:49 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
Sidenote: i'm curious why most people prefer postscript addition, when
prefix is never slower and sometimes faster. (Not that it matters one
iota for a case like this, it just seems to be very deeply embedded in most
people i
Hello,
as you might already know, I'm the primary author of libsoldout and its
integration into fossil to perform markdown-to-html conversion.
If you followed recent news, you might have heard of CommonMark[1],
which is an attempt to unify most implementations and extensions of
Markdown, by
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Natacha Porté nata...@instinctive.eu
wrote:
authors hope). Fortunately, there is no rush to take such a decision, as
a community we can reasonably to wait and see how CommonMark adoption
pans out.
[1]: http://commonmark.org/
i am completely ambivalent on
Hello,
on Sunday 28 September 2014 at 17:58, Stephan Beal wrote:
- Wiki syntaxes have always been a matter of personal taste, and there are
no less than 100 different ones out there in use. To anyone who believes
they can convince people to switch to a common dialect... i've got a
bridge in
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Natacha Porté nata...@instinctive.eu
wrote:
I completely share the opinion above, except I'm afraid you have
misunderstood the goal of CommonMark: it's not about unifying or
standardizing wiki format, only unifying Markdown.
i understand that, but there are
Here's what I do:
(I have installed the latest perl - Strawberry Perl, and I have installed
openssl-1.0.1i.tar.gz under the compat subdirectory)
Then (with MSVC) I do:
nmake -f Makefile.msc FOSSIL_ENABLE_SSL=1
and after some successful work, it halts with this message:
--
Update (if it helps):
The problem appears in the latest trunk version [e061a675e6].
I also tried with an earlier version [ee46563cbd], and it worked OK. But
the latest trunk fails consistently, so something must have broken in
between these two.
-Original Message-
From:
to...@acm.org wrote:
(I have installed the latest perl - Strawberry Perl, and I have installed
openssl-1.0.1i.tar.gz under the compat subdirectory)
I suspect this may have to do with the line-endings in the OpenSSL files.
Please try again with ActiveState Perl and let us know if that
http://xkcd.com/927/
--
D. Richard Hipp
Sent from phone - Excuse brevity
On Sep 28, 2014 12:46 PM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Natacha Porté nata...@instinctive.eu
wrote:
I completely share the opinion above, except I'm afraid you have
Nope! The same exact error.
I uninstalled StraberryPerl before installing ActivePerl.
So, the problem is elsewhere. Also, as I mentioned in the follow-up email:
The problem appears in the latest trunk version [e061a675e6].
When I tried with an earlier version [ee46563cbd], it worked OK.
to...@acm.org wrote:
When I tried with an earlier version [ee46563cbd], it worked OK. Since
the
latest trunk fails consistently (regardless of Perl version used),
something
must have broken sometime in between these two check-ins.
That version ([ee46563cbd]) makes no attempt to
I'm building on Win7 64-bit. Tomorrow, at work, I can try again on a Win7
32-bit, and see if that makes a difference.
Version [ee46563cbd] built without any errors, and apparently has SSL
support (much larger file size, and an attempt to connect to an HTTPS server
did not produce errors
to...@acm.org wrote:
I'm building on Win7 64-bit. Tomorrow, at work, I can try again on a Win7
32-bit, and see if that makes a difference.
Ok, that explains it. I had not tested x64 compilation with SSL enabled
prior
to today. Thanks for the report.
Please try again with the latest
Hello:
Thanks Natasha, for reviewing the CommonMark specification and
identifying issues applicable to your Fossil - Markdown parser.
Your arguments are persuasive.
Your obvious skill and knowledge about markdown and general text
parsing would be of high value to the CommonMark group and I
think
As of the very latest trunk [80b4adddec], you'll also need to add the
following
to the command lines:
FOSSIL_BUILD_SSL=1
--
Joe Mistachkin
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Stephan Beal decía, en el mensaje Re: [fossil-users] Pessimism about
CommonMark in fossil del domingo, 28 de septiembre de 2014 13:45:58:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Natacha Porté nata...@instinctive.eu
mailto:nata...@instinctive.eu wrote:
But this is still about disambiguating
Scott Robison wrote:
--===0702352335==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044286d854da5a05042007d5
--f46d044286d854da5a05042007d5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sep 28, 2014 12:49 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
Sidenote: i'm curious
19 matches
Mail list logo
