Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:13:06 +0100 "e...@bestmx.net" wrote: Hey Eugene, > so you insist, on your stupid strncmp() > ok. good luck. nah, just refactored the code. Refactoring means that you generally don't change the behaviour. I think, before we can even start discussing this

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

FRIGN wrote: > I had that floating in my mind as well, but the thing is, that some utils call > usage() pretty often. You would have to specify the long usage-string every > time which makes it unfeasable. Heyho FRIGN, yeah right… $ grep -r "usage()" | wc -l 219 $ ls *.c | wc -l 87 I thought

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

> I reworked eprintf.c to get rid of the duplicate code: > http://git.2f30.org/sbase/tree/libutil/eprintf.c so you insist, on your stupid strncmp() ok. good luck.

[dev] unsubscribe

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

FRIGN wrote: > I thought about this tonight and came to the conclusion that this "hack" > doesn't introduce too many problems. Heyho FRIGN, what do you think about making `usage(int status, char *shortargs)` an eprintf-like function in eprintf.c? This might clear things up for everyone.

Re: [dev] unsubscribe

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:48:29 +0100 "e...@bestmx.net" wrote: > I'll leave this uncommented. -- FRIGN

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:49:58 +0100 Markus Teich wrote: Hey Markus, > what do you think about making `usage(int status, char *shortargs)` an > eprintf-like function in eprintf.c? This might clear things up for everyone. I had that floating in my mind as well, but the

Re: [dev] Accessory for dwm

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:16:29AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote: Hi Markus, On 20 December 2015 at 12:04, Markus Wichmann wrote: Long story short, I wrote a dwmclock, that also displays the current default interface's first letter (usually sufficient, as most people have only

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 02:11:49 +0100 "e...@bestmx.net" wrote: Hey Eugene, > in response to the request made by Evil_Bob on OFTC#suckless > i hereby supply the patch "sbase" > and the proposed version of "eprintf.c" > as i believe it should look like. > >

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

> > in response to the request made by Evil_Bob on OFTC#suckless > > i hereby supply the patch "sbase" > > and the proposed version of "eprintf.c" > > as i believe it should look like. > > > > http://file.bestmx.net/ee/suckless/ > > Now, what you did here is rip out this status code handling

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:45:25 +0100 "e...@bestmx.net" wrote: > > Now, what you did here is rip out this status code handling > > No, i didn't My bad, I shouldn't look only at the diffs, might be confusing. > > In sbase, we have this more or less "scheme" how function naming >

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

> I also see no reason to add a specific usage-eprintf-function. What's > wrong with the strncmp()? Tell me please! how many times i have to do it? i told you already three times. you have created a HIDDEN unexpected special behaviour within a function. you have conflated TWO mutually exclusive

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:26:58 +0100 FRIGN wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:21:39 +0100 > "e...@bestmx.net" wrote: > > > you have created a HIDDEN unexpected special behaviour within a function. > > It's not hidden, it's free software, and Richard Stallman gave us

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:21:39 +0100 "e...@bestmx.net" wrote: > you have created a HIDDEN unexpected special behaviour within a function. It's not hidden, it's free software, and Richard Stallman gave us the freedom to study, sell and publish the source code as wished. > you

Re: [dev] Accessory for dwm

Hi Markus, On 20 December 2015 at 12:04, Markus Wichmann wrote: > Long story short, I wrote a dwmclock, that also displays the current > default interface's first letter (usually sufficient, as most people > have only at most one network card of each type in their machines), as

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

thank you for explaining the guiding principle of suckless community. OBSCURE THE CODE AS YOU CAN.

Re: [dev] libutil/eprintf clarification patch (to the Evil_Bob's request)

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Markus Teich wrote: > FRIGN wrote: > > I thought about this tonight and came to the conclusion that this "hack" > > doesn't introduce too many problems. > > Heyho FRIGN, > > what do you think about making `usage(int status, char *shortargs)` an >