thanks bob, ronald. updated/corrected the wiki.
On 23.07.2006, at 19:30, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2006, at 12:33 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The "loader problem" documented in that wiki isn't a Mac OS X
>>> problem
thanks bob, ronald. updated/corrected the wiki.
On 23.07.2006, at 19:30, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2006, at 12:33 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The "loader problem" documented in that wiki isn't a Mac OS X
>>> problem
On Jul 24, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
When a script is installed somewhere central, like /usr/local/bin,
that's really all that makes sense.
>>>
>>> That's clearly irrelevant, because people aren't going to be double-
>>> clicking on files that you have to do "magic inc
On 25/07/2006, at 6:20 AM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>> Setting the working directory to the directory containing the
>> script would be more useful.
It really is a bad idea to write into software directories of any
sort. They should be able to be write protected for security.
>
> I'm not s
>>> When a script is installed somewhere central, like /usr/local/bin,
>>> that's really all that makes sense.
>>
>> That's clearly irrelevant, because people aren't going to be double-
>> clicking on files that you have to do "magic incantations" to even
>> see from Finder.
Fair enough, but what
On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:52 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>
>> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>> Why's that? The directory that contains the script is a lot more
>>> useful
>>> for most scripts.
>> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>> No, it's not. There are approxi
On Jul 24, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> Why's that? The directory that contains the script is a lot more
>> useful
>> for most scripts.
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> No, it's not. There are approximately zero scripts that expect this
>> behavior.
>
> Most
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> Why's that? The directory that contains the script is a lot more useful
> for most scripts.
Bob Ippolito wrote:
> No, it's not. There are approximately zero scripts that expect this
> behavior.
Most "scripts" I've ever used are used from the command line, and the
worki
On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:31 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> Setting the working directory to the directory containing the script
>> would be more useful.
>
> I'm not so sure. That's a bad habit from the old MacOS and Windows.
> $HOME is an excellent choice for the default w
On Jul 24, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> Setting the working directory to the directory containing the script
>> would be more useful.
>
> I'm not so sure. That's a bad habit from the old MacOS and Windows.
> $HOME is an excellent choice for the default w
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> Setting the working directory to the directory containing the script
> would be more useful.
I'm not so sure. That's a bad habit from the old MacOS and Windows.
$HOME is an excellent choice for the default working directory.
It might make sense to add the directory con
On Jul 23, 2006, at 12:33 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The "loader problem" documented in that wiki isn't a Mac OS X problem
>> per se, it's just what PythonLauncher does. It launches scripts with
>> a path of $HOME. Pretty stupid, but
On Jul 22, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> The "loader problem" documented in that wiki isn't a Mac OS X problem
> per se, it's just what PythonLauncher does. It launches scripts with
> a path of $HOME. Pretty stupid, but that's what it does. It's only
> relevant if you're double-clic
13 matches
Mail list logo
