On 2018-02-07 13:17:21 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 07/02/18 02:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> >> The behaviour and policy of this list, when followed, does what I want.
> >
> > But the other users cannot know what you want if you do not s
On 2018-02-06 10:47:30 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-02-06 at 10:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > On 2018-02-06 08:49:01 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> >> On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> >>> This is not contradictory with the setting of
> >>> "Mail-Followup-To:".
> >>
On 2018-02-06 13:07:53 -0300, Lucas Castro wrote:
> Em 06-02-2018 10:38, Vincent Lefevre escreveu:
> > On 2018-02-06 13:48:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > This is completely crazy:
> > >
> > > zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago + 1 month'
> > > 2003-09-30
> > > zira% date +%Y-%m-
On 07/02/18 02:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
>> On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is entirely
>>> your problem.
>>
>> I could do that, I'm sure (though I'm not sure how) - but I'd r
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 22:55:51 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 at 13:47, Brian wrote:
>
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 10:24:14 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> >> If there's an ongoing discussion on that mailing list, and one of
> >> the participants wants to draw in a third person who also
Em 06-02-2018 10:38, Vincent Lefevre escreveu:
On 2018-02-06 13:48:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
This is completely crazy:
zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago + 1 month'
2003-09-30
zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago'
2003-08-31
zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-08-31 + 1 m
On 2018-02-06 at 10:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-06 08:49:01 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> This is not contradictory with the setting of
>>> "Mail-Followup-To:".
>>
>> Arguably, if the mailing list does not default replies back to
On 2018-02-06 09:01:58 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just an attempt to get a more informative subject line--maybe
> somebody can improve it.
Corrected the subject. This is not related to bash at all (I'm under
zsh, BTW). The GNU date utility comes from the coreutils.
> On Tuesday, February
On 2018-02-06 08:49:01 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> >> On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >>
> >>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is
> >>> entirely your problem
Just an attempt to get a more informative subject line--maybe somebody can
improve it.
On Tuesday, February 06, 2018 08:49:39 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:48:19PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2018-02-05 09:39:12 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > Anyway, here's what
On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 16:38:53 (+1100), Erik Christiansen wrote:
> […] is python that monstrosity which
> lacks code block delimiting, and so uses indenting in lieu?
Nice to see your criticism is so shallow.
Cheers,
David.
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 04:38:53PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
On 05.02.18 10:02, Michael Stone wrote:
IIRC it started out as a YACC function in the late 80s, and is now a Bison
(YACC+GNU extensions) library.
In that case it has a precise grammar, expressed in BNF (Backus Naur
Form), thoug
On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 13:48:19 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 09:39:12 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > (*) One specific shell script use case was "Get the last date of a given
> > month." Now, obviously you can just set up an array of hard-coded month
> > ending dates, and then wr
(I should probably have changed the Subject: line in my initial reply,
but I didn't expect it to spark an entire lengthy subthread like this. I
apologize for having introduced thread-subject confusion.)
On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:48:19PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 09:39:12 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Anyway, here's what I came up with:
> >
> > lastday() {
> > date +%Y-%m-%d -d "$1 1 day ago + 1 month"
> > }
>
> But the exact meaning of "month" seems undocumented, which
Just changing the subject--maybe someone can make a more specific subject line.
On Tuesday, February 06, 2018 08:34:11 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 18:01:08 +, Brian wrote:
> > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the
> > "duplicates" are not duplicates
On 2018-02-06 13:48:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> This is completely crazy:
>
> zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago + 1 month'
> 2003-09-30
> zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago'
> 2003-08-31
> zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-08-31 + 1 month'
> 2003-10-01
>
> So, while '200
On 2018-02-05 18:01:08 +, Brian wrote:
> Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the
> "duplicates" are not duplicates because the headers are different. The
> second problem is - which one do you wish to keep? The third problem
> (related to the second one) is the orde
On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is entirely
> > your problem.
>
> I could do that, I'm sure (though I'm not sure how) - but I'd rather
> that someone intending to send me a pr
On 2018-02-06 12:32:06 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 05.02.18 09:39, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > (*) One specific shell script use case was "Get the last date of a given
> > month." Now, obviously you can just set up an array of hard-coded month
> > ending dates, and then write a function to d
On 2018-02-05 09:39:12 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> (*) One specific shell script use case was "Get the last date of a given
> month." Now, obviously you can just set up an array of hard-coded month
> ending dates, and then write a function to determine whether the current
> year is a leap year f
On 06.02.18 19:16, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 06/02/18 18:38, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > Perl is the quintessential write-only language, which with a bit of luck
> > will die out before it catches on
>
> Now you're getting to fighting talk ... :-)
Whoops, forgot the <$0.02> ... markers.
But p
On 2018-02-06, David Wright wrote:
>
> Ah, OK, the timestamps. There's no need to worry about that. Every
> email I send to my wife, sitting at the same table, crosses the
> Atlantic twice, typically in under a minute, and sometimes much less.
>
You're not on speaking terms, is that it?
Or is it
On 2018-02-06, The Wanderer wrote:
>> Which brings us back to - how does one know someone is subscribed to
>> a Debian mailing list?
>
> I still fail to see why that's something we would need to know.
>
> Whether or not the person who posted a given message is subscribed does
> not change the cor
>> I promise you, people ARE using date -d '...' in shell scripts.
>> LOTS of people. Hell, I've done it.(*)
The Java Gregorian Calendar class was a delightful piece of software
when I last used it (15 or so years ago). It does know the difference
between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, among
On 06/02/18 18:38, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> Perl is the quintessential write-only language, which with a bit of luck
> will die out before it catches on
Now you're getting to fighting talk ... :-)
Richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 05.02.18 10:02, Michael Stone wrote:
> IIRC it started out as a YACC function in the late 80s, and is now a Bison
> (YACC+GNU extensions) library.
In that case it has a precise grammar, expressed in BNF (Backus Naur
Form), though the lexer (I've always used lex together with
yacc/bison) could a
On 2018-02-05 at 13:47, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 10:24:14 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>> If there's an ongoing discussion on that mailing list, and one of
>> the participants wants to draw in a third person who also
>> subscribes, it's entirely appropriate to CC a reply to that third
>
Richard Hector writes:
> On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> > You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that.
For reference, this refers to one of two proposed (but never
standardised) fields “Mail-Followup-To” and “Mail-Reply-To
On 06/02/18 15:45, Michael Stone wrote:
>> ... and how do you deal with locales that have changed definition over
>> time? What was the country code for (eg) Prussia in 1752? It just gets
>> painful ...
>
> Yes, this is more a novelty than anything. Even apart from changing
> national borders, thi
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 03:36:53PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
On 06/02/18 15:24, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:32:06PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
And for the far past, cal is superior; compare:
$ cal -3 9 1752
August 1752 September 1752 October 1752
On 06/02/18 15:24, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:32:06PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
>> And for the far past, cal is superior; compare:
>>
>> $ cal -3 9 1752
>> August 1752 September 1752 October 1752
>> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo T
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:13:10PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
But how would you deal with the simplest (to express) problem of all,
that of
$ date -d 1/2/18
Tue Jan 2 00:00:00 CST 2018
$
which would mean a battery of locale-specific rules.
Yup. You'd need to accept something (probably iso860
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:32:06PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:
And for the far past, cal is superior; compare:
$ cal -3 9 1752
August 1752 September 1752 October 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 1 2 14 15 1
On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 12:32:06 (+1100), Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 05.02.18 09:39, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> > > All you describe is convenience for programmatic use. As I explained,
> > > this parser is meant for interactive use.
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 23:39:30 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:42:32 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:37:45 (+), Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian w
On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
>> On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote:
PS - please don't cc me; I'm on the list.
>>> Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later. Document
>>> your preference in your mail mai
On 05.02.18 09:39, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> > All you describe is convenience for programmatic use. As I explained,
> > this parser is meant for interactive use.
>
> What on EARTH made you think THAT?
The fuzzy grammar of the date st
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 23:20:13 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:45:54 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 20:26:46 (+), Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:13:18 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian w
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 17:07:35 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > Received: from david by alum with local (Exim 4.80)
> > > (envelope-from )
> > > id 1eimCc-EV-Nv; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:13:18 -0600
>
> > Is that meant to tell me something (as you wrote "but")?
>
> Without knowi
Michael Stone:
Anyway, if there was a simple solution someone would have implemented
it by now.
Indeed, that is the case; and it has been around for almost as long as
those 20 years that you have been watching people use the GNU tool. In
2001, Paul Jarc invented a fairly simple notation for
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:42:32 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:37:45 (+), Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now you have problems (or could have). The
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:45:54 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 20:26:46 (+), Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:13:18 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge
> > Received: from david by alum with local (Exim 4.80)
> > (envelope-from )
> > id 1eimCc-EV-Nv; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:13:18 -0600
> Is that meant to tell me something (as you wrote "but")?
Without knowing exactly what piece Brian was focusing on, I can at
least point out that
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 20:26:46 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:13:18 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +, Bria
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:37:45 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the
> > > "duplicates" are not duplicates becaus
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:13:18 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > > AfAIK. there isn't any way to determine whether
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:18:29 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:00:16 (+), Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:32:32 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > > If it really worries you, the answer might be ~/.procmailrc and
> > >
> > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
> > > | for
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian wrote:
> >
> > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the
> > "duplicates" are not duplicates because the headers are different. The
> > second problem is - which on
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:00:16 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:32:32 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> > If it really worries you, the answer might be ~/.procmailrc and
> >
> > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
> > | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache
> >
> > I used it for years.
>
> So ha
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > AfAIK. there isn't any way to determine whether a message posted to
> > > -user is from a non-subscriber.
> >
> > I
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 16:09:11 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > > On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
> > > > | f
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:32:32 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> If it really worries you, the answer might be ~/.procmailrc and
>
> :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
> | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache
>
> I used it for years.
So has Microsoft in Exchange. They use it to delete a user's mails
silently. E
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 10:24:14 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 at 10:09, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> >> On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
> >> > | formail
On Monday, February 05, 2018 10:02:50 AM Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:11:23AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> >I assume (I know) that the license for date is some free / open source
> >license that would allow you to incorporate the old code into a new
> >function (probably
Thanks
On Monday, February 05, 2018 09:46:54 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> No need to guess. You can ask it.
>
> wooledg:~$ date --version
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +, Brian wrote:
> > AfAIK. there isn't any way to determine whether a message posted to
> > -user is from a non-subscriber.
>
> I believe some people are using the one of the X-Spam* headers
> and
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 16:09:11 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
> > > | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache
> > >
> > > I used it for years.
>
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +, Brian wrote:
> AfAIK. there isn't any way to determine whether a message posted to
> -user is from a non-subscriber.
I believe some people are using the one of the X-Spam* headers
and looking for the LDOSUBSCRIBER substring. Which is extremely
non-obvious
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 09:41:20 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 at 08:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > On 2018-02-05 08:40:27 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> >> On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> >>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is
> >>> enti
On 2018-02-05 at 10:09, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
>> > | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache
>> >
>> > I used it for years.
>
>> I don't parse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote:
[...]
> > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
> > | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache
> >
> > I used it for years.
>
> I don't parse this well enough
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:11:23AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume (I know) that the license for date is some free / open source license
that would allow you to incorporate the old code into a new function (probably
with appropriate citation / credit) and then add / modify / delete code
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:11:23AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> I assume (I know) that the license for date is some free / open source
> license
No need to guess. You can ask it.
wooledg:~$ date --version
date (GNU coreutils) 8.26
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License
On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:40:27 (-0500), The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is
>>> entirely your problem.
>>
>> That does seem to be the trend and positio
On 2018-02-05 at 08:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 08:40:27 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is
>>> entirely your problem.
>>
>> That does seem to be the trend and position of th
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> All you describe is convenience for programmatic use. As I explained,
> this parser is meant for interactive use.
What on EARTH made you think THAT?
I promise you, people ARE using date -d '...' in shell scripts.
LOTS of people. H
On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:40:27 (-0500), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote:
>
> >>> Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later.
> >>> Do
On Monday, February 05, 2018 08:07:47 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-04 08:22:23 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> > > In which case, it should refuse to accept '4/2/2018' at all, right?
> >
> > It can't, that would break work
On 2018-02-05 08:40:27 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> >> My preference is for any personal replies addressed to me to go to
> >> me, and I'd use the Reply-to header (as intended) if I needed it to
On 2018-02-05, Roberto C Sánchez wrote:
>>
>> It is not rare that the behavior of utilities change and break
>> scripts. So, why not here, in particular for a good reason?
>>
> It is equally common, perhaps even more so, that buggy behavior is
> retained (especially if it is not harmful) and th
On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
>
>> On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote:
>>> Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later.
>>> Document your preference in your mail mail header, the standard
>>> way, so th
On 2018-02-05 08:12:21 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 02:07:47PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2018-02-04 08:22:23 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> > > > In which case, it should refuse to accept '
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 02:07:47PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-02-04 08:22:23 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> > > In which case, it should refuse to accept '4/2/2018' at all, right?
> >
> > It can't, that would break wor
On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote:
> >> PS - please don't cc me; I'm on the list.
> > Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later. Document
> > your preference in your mail mail header, the standard way, so that it
> > is
On 2018-02-04 08:22:23 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> > In which case, it should refuse to accept '4/2/2018' at all, right?
>
> It can't, that would break working scripts. This is the heart of the
> problem: we know the parser is hor
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:45:16PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
David Wright (2018-02-04):
$ TZ=London date
Sun Feb 4 17:17:56 London 2018
$ TZ=UtterNonsense date
Sun Feb 4 17:44:00 UtterNonsense 2018
The fact that it printed the name you put and not the official name of
the time zone shows
On Sun 04 Feb 2018 at 18:45:16 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote:
> David Wright (2018-02-04):
> > $ TZ=London date
> > Sun Feb 4 17:17:56 London 2018
>
> $ TZ=UtterNonsense date
> Sun Feb 4 17:44:00 UtterNonsense 2018
>
> The fact that it printed the name you put and not the official name of
> the
David Wright (2018-02-04):
> $ TZ=London date
> Sun Feb 4 17:17:56 London 2018
$ TZ=UtterNonsense date
Sun Feb 4 17:44:00 UtterNonsense 2018
The fact that it printed the name you put and not the official name of
the time zone shows that the value is invalid. The correct value would
have been:
On Sun 04 Feb 2018 at 17:44:54 (+0100), Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mike Stone wrote:
> > So it must be that "first tuesday" means
> > the first tuesday in the month, but "second tuesday" sadly means the first
> > tuesday plus one second because "second" has more than one meaning and I
> > wan
Possibly because so many of us aliens are around.
>
> And what should human or machine think of my mail client's idea about
> when you sent your mail ?
>
>Tomorrow Richard Hector Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
I don't know how you did that, but here:
Hi,
Mike Stone wrote:
> So it must be that "first tuesday" means
> the first tuesday in the month, but "second tuesday" sadly means the first
> tuesday plus one second because "second" has more than one meaning and I
> wanted the other one.
This illustrates the fundamental problem with natural en
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 05:00:14PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
Anyway, if you propose to remove the ability to write something like
"2017-12-04 + 73 days", I veto as strongly as I can.
The above is a very restricted subset of the date(1) grammar. Your
confusion seems to stem from the fact tha
Michael Stone (2018-02-04):
> Again, 20 years of dealing with people actually having trouble with this.
> I'm really not making this up.
Ok. Then please let me tell you that you have an observation bias: as (I
suppose) a maintainer of the package, you have to deal with people who
have a problem, b
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:54:07PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
I hope you enjoy the warmth of the burning straw men. Good day.
Again, 20 years of dealing with people actually having trouble with
this. I'm really not making this up.
Mike Stone
Michael Stone (2018-02-04):
> Heck, let's try some natural language right now:
I hope you enjoy the warmth of the burning straw men. Good day.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
All you describe is convenience for programmatic use. As I explained,
this parser is meant for interactive use. For interactive use,
flexibility and natural language are a convenience.
And you keep ignoring the fact that actual hum
Michael Stone (2018-02-04):
> Well, it's not particularly convenient for people to have to constantly
> wonder why the parser isn't doing what they think it should do. I've been
> getting the questions and bug reports for 20 years, so trust me when I say
> that people have trouble predicting the ou
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 02:27:00PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
Michael Stone (2018-02-04):
But a better parser would allow the same functionality, without being
confusing, inconsistent, and hard to maintain. So yes, I'll stand by
"complete misfeature".
Can you describe what you mean by "bette
Thomas Schmitt (2018-02-04):
> And what should human or machine think of my mail client's idea about
> when you sent your mail ?
>
>Tomorrow Richard Hector Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
That it should learn to parse timezones and take them into account.
On 05/02/18 02:39, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> And what should human or machine think of my mail client's idea about
> when you sent your mail ?
>
>Tomorrow Richard Hector Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
Ha! That I'm in NZ, of course. And I'm up t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:23AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
[...]
> But a better parser would allow the same functionality, without
> being confusing, inconsistent, and hard to maintain. So
> yes, I'll stand by "complete misfeat
t your mail ?
Tomorrow Richard Hector Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
Michael Stone (2018-02-04):
> But a better parser would allow the same functionality, without being
> confusing, inconsistent, and hard to maintain. So yes, I'll stand by
> "complete misfeature".
Can you describe what you mean by "better parser" in more details?
Beware that the "same functionalit
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
In which case, it should refuse to accept '4/2/2018' at all, right?
It can't, that would break working scripts. This is the heart of the
problem: we know the parser is horrible, confusing, and irregular, but
any attempt to change
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 05/02/18 00:43, Nicolas George wrote:
> > Richard Hector (2018-02-05):
> >> #389251 (coreutils: date's -d switch doesn't honour locale) - it's quite
> >> an old one. But I found another instance in which the same claim applies:
> >>
> >> richard@zirco
On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote:
>> PS - please don't cc me; I'm on the list.
> Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later. Document
> your preference in your mail mail header, the standard way, so that it
> is automatic and works for everybody, just like I did. Too bad t
Richard Hector (2018-02-05):
> Now that you mention it ... ls was where I started this adventure,
> reading coreutils bugs :-)
>
> And you mention SI prefixes - IMHO, the output of ls should be extended
> to actually show 'GiB' rather than 'G' where that is what is meant.
> Assumptions that the us
On 05/02/18 01:32, Nicolas George wrote:
> Richard Hector (2018-02-05):
>> Actually, a good(ish) explanation is provided in a later bug, #729952:
>>
>> --8<--
>> The date parsing feature exists in Debian only for compatibility with
>> upstream. It is a complete misfeature, and I would prefe
Richard Hector (2018-02-05):
> Actually, a good(ish) explanation is provided in a later bug, #729952:
>
> --8<--
> The date parsing feature exists in Debian only for compatibility with
> upstream. It is a complete misfeature, and I would prefer that it didn't
> exist at all. In an ideal wo
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo