Norman Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi Norman,
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 15:09:03 -0500, Norman Ramsey wrote:
> > > I use darcs w -sl as a regular part of my workflow.
> > > It would speed things up enormously if I could tell darcs
> > > on the command line that certain files are boring.
> > >
> > > E.g.,
> > >
> > > darcs addboring empty umasm echo.txt
> >
> > Would the boring file mechanism work well enough for you?
>
> Absolutely not. Why should I interrupt a nice sensible command-line
> workflow to edit a boring file? You're talking not only about
> expanding a 1-second task to *at* *least* 10 seconds or more just to
> fire up the editor and fool around,
Who said anything about an editor?
>>_darcs/prefs/boring echo '^(./)?yow$'
> I understand the power of regexps for detecting boringness, but
> there's a reason the shell uses globbing patterns and not regexps.
> For the human interface, regexps are a tool of the devil.
Granted, but that is an issue throughout much of darcs -- for example,
darcs diff -p 'Add a new option (--with-foo)' probably won't do what the
user intended.
> I can't write a reliable script because darcs has no 'getpref' so I
> can't easily discover the identity of the boringfile my script should
> be editing.
x=awk '/^boringfile/ { print $2; }' _darcs/prefs/prefs
x=${x:-_darcs/prefs/boring}
Now $x contains the location of the boring file.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
