Adam Spiers wrote:
> You lost me, I'm afraid.  Why is that a violation, and which layer
> should the knowledge belong in?  Or are you suggesting mr could
> *automatically* detect whether an arbitrary action is interactive or
> not?  I can't imagine how this would be possible, short of some ugly
> hack involving Expect.

It's a layering violation for mr to need to understand every parameter
that could be passed by the user to every command that it could run, in
order to anticipate the behavior that the command.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

vcs-home mailing list

Reply via email to