Just removing this from updates.orgmode.org.
Hi Jeremy,
> I love it! Much better than my proposed patch.
I’m about to send a patch based on my snippet, so I’m marking this patch as
cancelled.
All the best,
Timothy
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 08:18:11PM +0300, Greg Minshall wrote:
> Tomas,
>
> in fact, i'm quite used to doing `chmod 755 foo.org`. i do it now in
> bash, used to do it in csh, and it seems to work (as expected, afaict)
> also in sh. all on arch linux. (`chmod +755 foo.org` *does* seem to
> give
Tomas,
in fact, i'm quite used to doing `chmod 755 foo.org`. i do it now in
bash, used to do it in csh, and it seems to work (as expected, afaict)
also in sh. all on arch linux. (`chmod +755 foo.org` *does* seem to
give odd results. :)
cheers, Greg
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:58:43PM +0800, Timothy wrote:
>
> writes:
>
> > So you favour going the "full custom special parser". You're much more
> > involved in Org, so I think your gut feeling counts more than mine here :)
>
> Well, I'm not sure that my feeling is representative of
On 2021-09-29 10:58, Timothy wrote:
I think as long as it’s clear what’s intended, and it’s not some
home-baked
non-standard format, or terribly annoying to support — why not?
Anyway, as an example here's a code snippet that implements everything
I've
mentioned.
... code removed for
writes:
> So you favour going the "full custom special parser". You're much more
> involved in Org, so I think your gut feeling counts more than mine here :)
Well, I'm not sure that my feeling is representative of experienced Org users,
my opinion basically boils down to:
>> I think as long
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 09:48:47PM +0800, Timothy wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> > As an org user I would expect :tangle-mode 0660 to produce a file that
> > has user rw, group rw, other nothing. Instead, what really happens
> > currently is 0660 is treated as an integer which is actually
> > 3140.
Hi Jeremy,
> As an org user I would expect :tangle-mode 0660 to produce a file that
> has user rw, group rw, other nothing. Instead, what really happens
> currently is 0660 is treated as an integer which is actually
> 3140. This produces unexpected file permissions.
I agree that :tangle-mode
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 09:17:54AM -0400, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> On 2021-09-29 07:07, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:29:06AM +0200, Gyro Funch wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>I don't know if it would ever be ambiguous, but could :tangle-mode
> >>have the ability to infer if it
On 2021-09-29 07:07, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:29:06AM +0200, Gyro Funch wrote:
[...]
I don't know if it would ever be ambiguous, but could :tangle-mode
have the ability to infer if it were integer- or octal-format based
on checking against 'reasonable' permission
Hi Jeremy,
Jeremy Cowgar writes:
> As an org user I would expect :tangle-mode 0660 to produce a file that
> has user rw, group rw, other nothing. Instead, what really happens
> currently is 0660 is treated as an integer which is actually
> 3140. This produces unexpected file permissions.
(Just
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:29:06AM +0200, Gyro Funch wrote:
[...]
> I don't know if it would ever be ambiguous, but could :tangle-mode
> have the ability to infer if it were integer- or octal-format based
> on checking against 'reasonable' permission settings in octal
> notation?
To me, that
On 2021-09-29 10:22 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 09:52:23AM +0200, dkrm wrote:
Jeremy Cowgar writes:
[...]
Are you suggesting this currently works or that the patch should be
changed to make that work? A quick try on my local system (pre-patch),
I receive the error:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 09:52:23AM +0200, dkrm wrote:
>
> Jeremy Cowgar writes:
[...]
> > Are you suggesting this currently works or that the patch should be
> > changed to make that work? A quick try on my local system (pre-patch),
> > I receive the error:
> >
> > Wrong type argument:
Jeremy Cowgar writes:
> On 2021-09-29 02:39, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:54:48AM -0400, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>>> As an org user I would expect :tangle-mode 0660 to produce a file that
>>> has user rw, group rw, other nothing. Instead, what really happens
>>> currently
On 2021-09-29 02:39, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:54:48AM -0400, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
As an org user I would expect :tangle-mode 0660 to produce a file that
has user rw, group rw, other nothing. Instead, what really happens
currently is 0660 is treated as an integer which
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 02:55:46AM -0400, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> On 2021-09-29 02:39, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:54:48AM -0400, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> >>As an org user I would expect :tangle-mode 0660 to produce a file that
> >>has user rw, group rw, other nothing.
Tomas,
> Why not recommend Elisp's explicit syntax for octal representation,
> i.e. :tangle-mode #o660? And put a prominent note in the docs,
> of course.
as much as my fingers are used to "0660 ==> octal", this probably makes
sense.
on the other hand, to protect users, might it be worthwhile
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:54:48AM -0400, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> As an org user I would expect :tangle-mode 0660 to produce a file that
> has user rw, group rw, other nothing. Instead, what really happens
> currently is 0660 is treated as an integer which is actually
> 3140. This produces
20 matches
Mail list logo
