On Tuesday 15 May 2001 3:59 am, Bruce Korb wrote:
1. make a change that accomplishes a small goal:
o fixes a bug
o unifies common code into global macros
o moves towards a real program (as opposed to a shell
script emitter wrapped around the shell script).
2. emit
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 4:01 am, Bruce Korb wrote:
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Hi Bruce,
On Monday 14 May 2001 1:31 am, Bruce Korb wrote:
When this invocation fires,
an anonymous template is created with that text and then processed.
The output is redirected to an unlinked file (no
Hi Bruce,
This is how I envision the logistics of integrating your branch to avoid CVS
merge hell:
* Finish the MLB-HEAD merge.
* Flush the patch queue (for HEAD and branch-1-4)
* Release libtool-1.4.1 (libtool-1.4-p1?) from branch-1-4
* Release 1.5b from HEAD,
Hi Bruce,
On Monday 14 May 2001 1:31 am, Bruce Korb wrote:
When this invocation fires,
an anonymous template is created with that text and then processed.
The output is redirected to an unlinked file (no Windows here),
and read back in.
Eeek! I was already worried about getting guile to
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Hi Bruce,
This is how I envision the logistics of integrating your branch to avoid CVS
merge hell:
* Finish the MLB-HEAD merge.
* Flush the patch queue (for HEAD and branch-1-4)
* Release libtool-1.4.1 (libtool-1.4-p1?) from branch-1-4
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Hi Bruce,
On Monday 14 May 2001 1:31 am, Bruce Korb wrote:
When this invocation fires,
an anonymous template is created with that text and then processed.
The output is redirected to an unlinked file (no Windows here),
and read back in.
Eeek! I was
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
In other words, your new macro should not need to do this:
[= test-and-exit test = (get test) ... =]
because it would be redundant.
Good. But I had meant to write ``I'd like *you* to implement ...''
:-)
Then I would need to understand better what you
On May 13, 2001, Bruce Korb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
In other words, your new macro should not need to do this:
[= test-and-exit test = (get test) ... =]
because it would be redundant.
Good. But I had meant to write ``I'd like *you* to implement ...''
