It should be noted, You can do that (without a code change) with an
appropriate chunk of code in your ~/.mg file.
(at least, that's how I have always done it)
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Stuart Cassoff s...@bell.net wrote:
On 08/13/14 18:51, Brian Callahan wrote:
Hi tech --
Diff below
I would think that automatically reading any file in pwd named tags, and
trying to parse it as a tags file *by default* whenever mg is started is a
bad choice.
s/irrespective/regardless/
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Sunil Nimmagadda
su...@sunilnimmagadda.com wrote:
This version implements some off-list review comments...
1. Discard explicit checking whether command exists and it's
permissions since shell already does and reports error.
2.
There's nothing *technically* wrong with irrespective, but it is a tad
awkward when compared with regardless.
irregardless is a hangable offense.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Jason McIntyre j...@cava.myzen.co.ukwrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:46:46PM -0400, Kjell Wooding wrote:
s
Regardless, I stand by my original comment. :)
On Thursday, March 29, 2012, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:00:56AM -0400, Kjell Wooding wrote:
There's nothing *technically* wrong with irrespective, but it is a tad
awkward when compared with regardless.
there's nothing
Thoughts, since we have been down this road before.
1. You can remap keys, in your ~/.mg file
2. I should point out that all of mg (other than theo.c) is currently
PUBLIC DOMAIN, not merely BSD, so this change is significant, license-wise.
Please be pedantic about including licenses.
3. Why
I think the massive mg user base can handle a single flavor. :)
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Eichert, Diana deic...@sandia.gov wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 08:35:18AM -0400, Kjell Wooding wrote:
2. I should point out that all of mg (other than theo.c) is currently
PUBLIC DOMAIN
Overloading goto-bol is a terrible idea.
If it's really desirable, it should become a function (back-to-indentation),
and get bound go M-m...
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse
jas...@humppa.nlwrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:37:39AM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
It *seems harder* (but I'm not an expert on this kind of thing!) to
predict the first couple of rounds if nanotime_noise is hashed (which
means that you have to re-do the complete calculation for each possible
nanotime_noise, which may not necessarily be the case above), and if
this hashing
Can you please stop wasting time asking questions before you bother to read
about what you are asking?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Marsh Ray ma...@extendedsubset.comwrote:
How is this different, except for perhaps the intermediate arc4 cipher.
What does that add, other than crappiness?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Marsh Ray ma...@extendedsubset.comwrote:
On 12/22/2010 11:44 AM, Kjell Wooding wrote:
Can you please stop wasting time asking questions before you bother to
read
about what you are asking?
Consider the possibility that I have, in fact, read a little bit
Looks good. Here is a slight cleanup. Essentially, fix alphabetical
ordering, change function name :
Index: def.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/mg/def.h,v
retrieving revision 1.113
diff -u -u -r1.113 def.h
--- def.h30 Jun 2010
The OpenBSD random number subsystem uses an in-kernel entropy pool. This
data isn't used directly. When entropy is requested, the contents of the
pool are hashed with MD5, and the massaged output used to seed an RC4 PRNG.
In looking at the code, however, I notice we actually fold the MD5 output
Probably my (pasting) bad. This isn't my favourite mailer. patch -l will fix
that though...
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Nima Hoda nimah...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 03:01:57PM -0700, Kjell Wooding wrote:
Looks good. Here is a slight cleanup. Essentially, fix alphabetical
, and so on.
Anyway, I'm muttering aloud now. In the meantime, is there any reason to
keep the fold?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Damien Miller d...@mindrot.org wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Kjell Wooding wrote:
The OpenBSD random number subsystem uses an in-kernel entropy pool. This
data
Hi Damien.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Damien Miller d...@mindrot.org wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010, Kjell Wooding wrote:
How would a preimage attack matter in this case?
It gives you knowledge of the collection pool, which is what the very
thing the design is supposed to avoid
There are arc4random_buf () calls in the kernel. Those can use the
arc4random_buf_large() mechanism, can thy not? Or are the requests
typically
too small?
arc4random_buf_large() is not exported as an API; this is intentional.
If you do arc4random_buf_large() for a small buffer size,
Note that this assumes that there is no backdoor in random(6) (or
arc4random_uniform, which it calls) designed to prevent the source file
with the backdoor from being selected with the above command.
That's true. I would submit a patch, but it would require every developer to
carry around a
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Han Boetes h...@mijncomputer.nl wrote:
Kjell Wooding wrote:
I might add an undo boundary around the whole thing (I note
emacs doesn't do this properly, at least on the version I have
here)...
Undoing join-line works fine with the emacs version I am using
I'm afraid simply adding the the undo boundary around newline()
will break yank(), which sets its own boundary and calls newline()
among other changes. If we want this undo stuff, then we probably
should add checks such that none of these functions set boundaries
if they were disabled (by
Yeah, nice catch on the twiddle bug. This looks pretty good. Anyone else try
it?
-kj
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Henri Kemppainen ducl...@guu.fi wrote:
Looks pretty good. I might add an undo boundary
around the whole thing (I note emacs doesn't do this
properly, at least on the
Oh goodness. My recollection is that 1 byte per character is assumed all
over the place. This is going to take a *while* to test properly.
Maybe this is a good time for me to start looking at mg again...
On Thursday, 21 January 2016, Mark Lumsden wrote:
> I am busy for
Regardless of the decision on which way the behavior should go, it is a
documentation bug either way. (E.g. beginning-of-buffer is missed
entirely). Probably my fault (from a lng time ago.)
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:53 AM Leonid Bobrov wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:36:41PM +0200,
> Note: I only wanted to point out something that bothered me. I'm not
> using mg(1) these days and I don't plan to spend time on this issue.
That’s pretty much the modern internet, summarized in two sentences
24 matches
Mail list logo