[openbox] defunct processes

corey at streamreel.net corey at streamreel.net
Thu Nov 20 19:25:12 EST 2003

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:44:50PM +0100, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 corey at streamreel.net wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:20:09PM +0100, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Brett Campbell wrote:
> > > > While recently using and absolutely loving the openbox-3\.0(-rc[1-4])?
> > > 
> > > You can't use regex for generating text, only matching :)
> > 
> >   Yeah but when our brains parse that regexp, we expand it internally
> >   and apply it to any given text for which it was intended, in this case
> >   $openbox_version.
> well, something like openbox-3.0{,-rc{1,2,3,4}} is still better :)

That's much too verbose. 

regexp's are better, IMHO - more succinct, less typing. 

As an over the top example, what if he wanted to refer to openbox versions 
1.0 through 3.0, rc's 1 through 100?

Escaping the '.' seems like overkill though, which brings up a good point -
should "psuedo-regexps" be considered satisfactory, in the face of common
sense, or should they be scorned? [disclaimer: obviously off topic. ]

> oh and while i remember, do you have to write your text with the exact 
> same indentation as the quoted text?

Actualy no one has ever mentioned that to me, and I have never considered it.

I think the indentation looks ok, and seems natural, when I respond to other
posts, but now that you've raised my attention, I can see that it sucks when
responding to posts that I've responded to.

Initiating behavior modification sequence...   check.

All systems go.

More information about the openbox mailing list