[hackers] [ubase] [patch] last: wrote manpage

I took a stab in the dark that the date should be when the utlity was written. Feel free to correct it if it's should be something else. -- Thomas Mannay >From 847899758d53d17eac7465375dd8c86f39dee391 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Mannay

Re: [hackers] [sbase] [patch] ed: standards compliance, manpage, double free and infinite loop fix

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016, at 09:43, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > one thing that has caught my attention is the titling of the patches. > It is better to use the active form rather than passive form, so my > suggestions for renaming would be > > "ed: newly joined lines are placed correctly" > -> "ed: place

Re: [hackers] [sbase] [patch] ed: standards compliance, manpage, double free and infinite loop fix

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:04:17 + Thomas Mannay wrote: Hey Thomas, > one thing that has caught my attention is the titling of the patches. It is better to use the active form rather than passive form, so my suggestions for renaming would be "ed: newly joined

Re: [hackers] [sbase] [patch] ed: standards compliance, manpage, double free and infinite loop fix

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:04:17 + Thomas Mannay wrote: Hey Thomas, > Resubmission of my patchset for ed, albeit much better formatted so > as to ease reading them. thank you very much for your patches! I'll take a look at them Sunday evening and give you some

Re: [hackers][sbase][ed] small changes

On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 16:32:53 +0300 "Ali H. Fardan" wrote: Hey Ali, > O.o, whhops, that was the wrong patch, attached is the correct one. > sorry for spamming the list. the patch is looking good. Nice work! Cheers Laslo -- Laslo Hunhold

Re: [hackers][sbase][ed] small changes

O.o, whhops, that was the wrong patch, attached is the correct one. sorry for spamming the list.diff --git a/ed.c b/ed.c index 184ed30..feeab43 100644 --- a/ed.c +++ b/ed.c @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ inject(char *s) } static void -clearbuf() +clearbuf(void) { if (scratch) close(scratch); @@

Re: [hackers][sbase][ed] small changes

Uhm, sorry about that, but my last patch violates the default ed behavior by using eprintf(), here is the corrected version: diff --git a/ed.c b/ed.c index 184ed30..1e834a6 100644 --- a/ed.c +++ b/ed.c @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ inject(char *s) } static void -clearbuf() +clearbuf(void) {

[hackers][sbase][ed] small changes

diff --git a/ed.c b/ed.c index 184ed30..c7648eb 100644 --- a/ed.c +++ b/ed.c @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ inject(char *s) } static void -clearbuf() +clearbuf(void) { if (scratch) close(scratch); @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ clearbuf() } static void -setscratch() +setscratch(void)