On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If I am right, there are some patches enabling mouse chords in sam as
> well as using focus follows mouse (like acme).
> I found some kind of the former in Steve Simon's contrib.
> What about the latter?
>
> Thanks
> Ruda
>
>
The
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
>> `Interfaces', the way they are invariably implemented, don't cut it --
>> too limiting and imposing.
>
> I do not claim that Go's interfaces can match the type system of
> Haskell but this sentence tells me you aren't very familiar with them.
> T
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:12:00 PDT Russ Cox wrote:
>> > I do wonder if this is what the Go authors are trying to do in a
>> > different area to xml; reintroduce good practice under new terminology.
>>
>> I'd like to know which good practices Go i
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:29 PM, John Floren wrote:
> I'm going to be doing some work with 9P and high-latency links this
> summer and fall. I need to be able to test things over a high-latency
> network, but since I may be modifying the kernel, running stuff on
> e.g. mordor is not the best optio
You spent an interesting evening recently with an FAQ, I see.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Uriel wrote:
> I recently made a fascinating archeological discovery:
>
> http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/humour/shaneys-plan9-faq
>
> Enjoy!
>
> uriel
>
>
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:32 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> So can we sum up the 9vx state?
>
> Here's my summary:
> tinycore, 2.6.32, gcc 4.4.3
> 1. pretty easy to blow up with an hget of the plan 9 iso on SMP, -O3
> 2. lotsafiles *sometimes* fails, other times runs with no trouble on SMP, -O3
> 3. re
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:30 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the tinycore guys would refuse tvx because of included
> man pages or source.
>
>
Unless they like emacs.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:59 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Federico G. Benavento
> wrote:
>> just a comment, the python port includes some hg bits because of my lazyness
>> the thing is that hg isn't just python, it has some c modules that had
>> to be built
>> in in p
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:21 AM, EBo wrote:
>
>> portage is horrid. i hate it more every time i use it.
>> and it doesn't work. revdep rebuild is proof.
>
> it is a lot more dependable than any other package maintenance system I've
> used on *NIX based systems. The fundamental problem requirin
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> portage is horrid. i hate it more every time i use it.
> and it doesn't work. revdep rebuild is proof.
>
> it's not clear to me that this is gentoo's fault. linux and
> gnu together are one heck of a difficult place for
> a distribution
>From the graph on page 2, Linux has a lot of middle management going on.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Russ Cox wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:10 AM, David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Does it mean IL has performance issue on long-distance networks?
>>
>> As I understand it, the real problem is that Internet
>> doesn't handle IL well.
>
> They are b
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote:
>
> On 3 May 2010, at 19:34, Jorden M wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, erik quanstrom
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's always been easier for me to use python's/perl's r
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> It's always been easier for me to use python's/perl's regular
>> expressions when I needed to process a text file than to use plan9's.
>> For simple things, e.g. while editing an ordinary text in acme/sam,
>> plan9's regexps are just fine.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM, John Floren wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:59 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> On Tue Apr 27 13:58:39 EDT 2010, slawmas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:54 PM, wrote:
>>> > Nice work, but couldn't you just bind /n/sources/plan9/sys/src
>>> > to
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:52 AM, wrote:
>> I had the thought "why not write a C++ to C converter"
>
> CFront was the original front end and it has been enhanced somewhat
> since its early days. But I believe it isn't likely to support all of
> G++'s features. You'll find it on sources:
>
>
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
> It occurred to me that a profitable thing to do here would be to mention some
> things that would be nice to see in a new improved TeX... I believe
> bidirectional was mentioned already.
>
> The other thing that is essential for folk
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:35 AM, David Leimbach wrote:
> I wonder if it will boot with rEFIt though.
>
rEFIt is enough to fool all the other bootloaders.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:19 PM, EBo wrote:
>
>> > These new flint arrowheads are state of the art! I always use them for
>> > HPC with my MPI code!
>>
>> With some ancient Fortran sprinkled in? :-)
>
> Now were were those Jacquard loom plates I had sitting around?
Under the pile of Hollerith car
19 matches
Mail list logo
