Greetings,
Patrick Haller wrote:
On 2011-09-25 03:19, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
ocaml;wu (ocaml; won't use)
use the bringer_obsolete.bash [1] from the package?
why ocaml;wu? because it's outside the C/sh stack, or ?
in the first ecumenical council of the suckless church, C and sh
were
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
Christoph Lohmann 2...@r-36.net wrote:
All we need is a better syntax for sh,
This
should be doable in the size of dash. Rc does not fit very well,
because it is missing mass adoption and has some ugliness in the
various implementations across Plan 9 and
Ethan Grammatikidis eeke...@fastmail.fm writes:
Anyone know why ghc is that big? I'm having trouble figuring it out.
It bundles a large amount of libraries, and probably duplicate versions
with profiling data as well. A self-contained GHC build (as created
after compiling and prior to
Ethan Grammatikidis eeke...@fastmail.fm writes:
It's redirection and the behaviour of cp mv when the last arg is a
dir that bother me, in rc.
What has the behavior of cp and mv to do with the shell used?
rc's redirection syntax is remarkably clean and powerful, but it
shouldn't be very hard
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:17:23 +0200
Christian Neukirchen chneukirc...@gmail.com wrote:
Ethan Grammatikidis eeke...@fastmail.fm writes:
It's redirection and the behaviour of cp mv when the last arg is a
dir that bother me, in rc.
What has the behavior of cp and mv to do with the shell
