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
eblank
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 means after and
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
coloring of the
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, what about here:
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
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 that having a
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 would
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 readable in
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
--
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 this
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 ;)
I (not
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 Knock
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
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 depends on
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 opposite effect.
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
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, 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 sure there
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 follow this one
19 matches
Mail list logo
