[openbox] defunct processes

[Mikael Magnusson]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 corey at streamreel.net wrote:

> 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:
> <snip>
> > > > > 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.

so it's okay if instead of this whole email, i just write .* and let you
figure out the rest? :)

> 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?

hm, well, one can do {1..100} in zsh, but it's nonstandard

> 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. ]
> 
> 
> <snippage>
> > 
> > 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.

Thanks

--
Mikael Magnusson