On 26 Mar 2009, at 02:26, Cláudia Soares wrote:
One info source about shebangs can be found at
http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shebang/
For Mac Os X 10.5.6 PPC G4, I got:
$ ./invoker.sh
argv[0]: "/tmp/showargs"
argv[1]: "-1"
argv[2]: "-2"
argv[3]: "-3"
argv[4]: "./invoker.sh"
Hans
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:13 PM
Now, I'll admit that we have very few lilypond users on OpenServer
and Unicos (WTM is Unicos, anyway?!).
A bit off topic, but Unicos is the OS on some high performance
computers from Cray Research: http://www.cray.com/home.aspx . Not
m
On 2009/03/25, at 12:10, Graham Percival wrote:
LSB
To me, it seems desirable that an uneducated user can run lilypond-
book without messing up with the script itself.
In the vast majority of uneducated users in the unix world you might
find mostly standard linux distros (ubuntu and the
On 2009/03/25, at 12:10, Graham Percival wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:41:04PM +, Claudia wrote:
#!/usr/bin/env python
in order to run in all today's unix systems, including Mac OS X.
Using this shebang is a great way to portability.
I believe that some systems use /bin/env ? Or
Trevor Danielswrote:
I prefer to use "Unicode hexadecimal value".
There are too many sorts of Unicode hexadecimal values
for this to be reliably unambiguous.
I think the "hexadecimal" bit is a red herring
and only needs mentioning once, as in:
where is the hexadecimal code for the cha
Graham Percival a écrit :
Now, I'll admit that we have very few lilypond users on OpenServer
and Unicos (WTM is Unicos, anyway?!). And although redhat uses
/bin, as long as there's a symlink it should work.
It sounds like there is no ideal solution, but AFAIK Python is shipped
with all GUB b
On 24 Mar 2009, at 21:41, Claudia wrote:
Please, replace the first line in lilypond-book:
#!/usr/bin/python
by
#!/usr/bin/env python
in order to run in all today's unix systems, including Mac OS X.
Using this shebang is a great way to portability.
These two are not the same - the latter ex
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:26:35AM +, Cláudia Soares wrote:
>
> On 2009/03/25, at 12:10, Graham Percival wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:41:04PM +, Claudia wrote:
>>>
>>> #!/usr/bin/env python
>>
>> See previous discussions about this:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-de
On 26 Mar 2009, at 10:34, Francisco Vila wrote:
However, I agree the description of \char in the
manual could be clearer. It needs to indicate the
hex string is a variable length dependent on the
character being encoded. I'll fix it.
Trevor
This is what confused me. The integer argument to
2009/3/25 Trevor Daniels :
> However, I agree the description of \char in the
> manual could be clearer. It needs to indicate the
> hex string is a variable length dependent on the
> character being encoded. I'll fix it.
> Trevor
This is what confused me. The integer argument to \char (either
d
Hans Aberg wrote Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:57 AM
On 26 Mar 2009, at 00:55, Trevor Daniels wrote:
The manual says that \char #65 produces the letter "A". Here, 65
is an ordinary integer. Which position number basis? The ASCII
hexadecimal number for "A" is 41, in languages like C/C++
wri
On 26 Mar 2009, at 00:55, Trevor Daniels wrote:
The manual says that \char #65 produces the letter "A". Here, 65 is
an ordinary integer. Which position number basis? The ASCII
hexadecimal number for "A" is 41, in languages like C/C++ written
as 0x41, and in Unicode U+0041. What is the dec
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> I prefer to use "Unicode hexadecimal value".
There are too many sorts of Unicode hexadecimal values
for this to be reliably unambiguous.
I think the "hexadecimal" bit is a red herring
and only needs mentioning once, as in:
> where is the hexadecimal code for the c
13 matches
Mail list logo
