Markus Teich writes:
> Brad Barden wrote:
>> Heads up, unless I'm missing something the {foo,bar} alternation here is a
>> bash-ism. You may want to spell them both out instead.
>
> Heyho Brad,
>
> Thanks, should be fixed now. Can a FreeBSD and an OpenBSD user confirm, the
> new settings work aft
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:58:27AM -0500, Brad Barden wrote:
> On Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 06:45:38AM +0100, Isabella Parakiss wrote:
> > It's a ksh-ism, introduced in ksh88. Bashism != "not in posix sh".
>
> Then please forgive my off-hand remark. I didn't mean it to be
> misleading or make that comp
On Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 06:45:38AM +0100, Isabella Parakiss wrote:
> It's a ksh-ism, introduced in ksh88. Bashism != "not in posix sh".
Then please forgive my off-hand remark. I didn't mean it to be
misleading or make that comparison. To be accurate, {} expansion was
introduced in C shell.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:29:26PM -0500, Brad Barden wrote:
> Heads up, unless I'm missing something the {foo,bar} alternation here is
> a bash-ism. You may want to spell them both out instead.
>
It's a ksh-ism, introduced in ksh88. Bashism != "not in posix sh".
--
xoxo iza
Brad Barden wrote:
> Heads up, unless I'm missing something the {foo,bar} alternation here is a
> bash-ism. You may want to spell them both out instead.
Heyho Brad,
Thanks, should be fixed now. Can a FreeBSD and an OpenBSD user confirm, the
new settings work after uncommenting?
--Markus
Heads up, unless I'm missing something the {foo,bar} alternation here is
a bash-ism. You may want to spell them both out instead.
On Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 08:22:55PM +0100, g...@suckless.org wrote:
> commit ceda5d69ac1c644bde0271012b90ea8bd02e69fb
> Author: Markus Teich
> AuthorDate: Tue Mar 15
commit ceda5d69ac1c644bde0271012b90ea8bd02e69fb
Author: Markus Teich
AuthorDate: Tue Mar 15 20:21:54 2016 +0100
Commit: Markus Teich
CommitDate: Tue Mar 15 20:21:54 2016 +0100
support FreeBSD
On FreeBSD the lib and include directories are in /usr/local rather than
/usr.
di
