> *shakes head in disbelief*. If that's really true this should be > made _very explicit_ in the manual, so people know what to expect. > Perhaps point out the "process" interfaces as an alternative. > Maybe deprecate "qs" entirely?
I found qs very helpful. > > Does this "double wrap" requirement mean my change to setup-api will > cause breakage on Windows? If the change is *not* made, the patch for > qs breaks on UNIX. csc does this double-wrapping, as does setup-api (see "$system" - for some unknown reason the god of consistency has made sure these functions do actually roughly the same thing). I darkly recall that '...' was not sufficient for quoting everything but apparently that was wrong. Weird. One question, though: how can I escape the tick (#\') itself? My attempts at the bash prompt using various combinations of ' and \ don't seem to work. Actually, the more I try, the more I realize that the situation with bash isn't much better than it with with Windows ... cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
