On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 17:01 +, Duncan wrote:
> Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> excerpted below, on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:41:55 -0600:
>
> > I am leaning more and more toward the idea of a neutral color for
> > eblanks, as this would indeed be trivial to code and it
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 14:02 +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Срд, 11/06/2008 в 19:45 -0400, Jim Ramsay пишет:
> > Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I would prefer something that
> > > doesn't add extra lines to ebuild.
> >
> > I think I would disagree with you here. I think tha
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:41:55 -0600:
> I am leaning more and more toward the idea of a neutral color for
> eblanks, as this would indeed be trivial to code and it would make
> output make more sense, especially for conditi
Duncan wrote:
> Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 16
> Jun 2008 08:34:01 -0400:
>
>> Well, this is true and it isn't... In the case of:
>>
>> ewarn line one
>> eblank
>> ewarn line two
>>
>> Obviously it would be the same as ewarn. However,
Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 16
Jun 2008 08:34:01 -0400:
> Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As for why it would be more useful than eerror/ewarn without an
>> argument: it would potentially allow for intelligent "context-based"
>> col
"Benedikt Morbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But speaking about names of options - -A and -B are easier to
> > remember as -A stands for above and -B for below and grep users
> > already knew that.
>
> for grep -A me
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for why it would be more useful than eerror/ewarn without an
> argument: it would potentially allow for intelligent "context-based"
> coloring of the "*" (based on surrounding lines).
Well, this is true and it isn't... In the case of:
ewarn line one
Benedikt Morbach wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But speaking about names of options - -A and -B are easier to remember
>> as -A stands for above and -B for below and grep users already knew
>> that.
>
> for grep -A means after and -B before ;)
В Вск, 15/06/2008 в 13:19 +0200, Benedikt Morbach пишет:
> > But speaking about names of options - -A and -B are easier to
> remember
> > as -A stands for above and -B for below and grep users already knew
> > that.
>
> for grep -A means after and -B before ;)
True. And still, one day I learn thi
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But speaking about names of options - -A and -B are easier to remember
> as -A stands for above and -B for below and grep users already knew
> that.
for grep -A means after and -B before ;)
--
Benedikt
--
gentoo-dev@list
В Срд, 11/06/2008 в 19:45 -0400, Jim Ramsay пишет:
> Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would prefer something that
> > doesn't add extra lines to ebuild.
>
> I think I would disagree with you here. I think that having a special
> 'eblank' or 'eseparator' command is much more re
Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would prefer something that
> doesn't add extra lines to ebuild.
I think I would disagree with you here. I think that having a special
'eblank' or 'eseparator' command is much more readable in an ebuild.
Consider:
pkg_postinst() {
elog "Kn
Joe Peterson wrote:
The comment from Vlastimil about echo not being part of the elog system
is a very valid point indeed. As for how to specify that a newline
should be inserted, I think that using elog switches like "-n", "-p",
etc., as well as putting more than one string on a line present two
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 00:42 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> There could be also switch to add newline
>> before the message but I can't think of a use for it myself.
>> The question is how to name the switch :) "-n" could be confusing as
>> "echo -n" has the oppo
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 00:42 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Joe Peterson wrote:
> > The problem with a simple echo is that no "*" appears on the left to
> > maintain continuity with the rest of the output - and in a color that
> > makes sense in the context (maybe this isn't a "problem" - it depend
Joe Peterson wrote:
The problem with a simple echo is that no "*" appears on the left to
maintain continuity with the rest of the output - and in a color that
makes sense in the context (maybe this isn't a "problem" - it depends on
whether that visual continuity is desired).
The far biggest pro
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:52 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>> I think a more ideal solution, less drastic to implement might be
>> allowing 2 arguments to be passed. So you could do like
>>
>> elog "" "A blank line precedes this one"
>> elog "A blank line foll
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 20:52 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
>
> I think a more ideal solution, less drastic to implement might be
> allowing 2 arguments to be passed. So you could do like
>
> elog "" "A blank line precedes this one"
> elog "A blank line follow this one" ""
Actually 3, not s
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 18:45 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> I just throw a couple echos around any output.
Surely more than one way
> I think doing any kind of automatic pretty-print formatting is
> overkill, but that's just my opinion.
Yes to a point. Starting having multiple blocks like that, and
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:31:58 -0600
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > Just a quick thought looking over a couple ebuilds. It seems most
> > times anyone does a error, elog, einfo, or similar. They start and
> > end with a few blank lines. Calls with no argu
20 matches
Mail list logo
