sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: "Nathan Doss" <ndoss AT mtlaurel.org>
- To: Peter Schneider-Kamp <peter AT schneider-kamp.de>, sm-sorcery <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file()
- Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 18:54:15 -0400
> I have attached another patch for edit_file() with a bit
> more intelligence.
I've applied it to the cvs version of sorcery (See bug #778
in bugzilla).
> Questions:
> 1) Is it too much intelligence, i.e. too complex and too
> much overhead?
I like it.
> 2) Is it a good idea to ask the user if everything else
> fails? If so, should this be a dialog when called from
> sorcery?!
I'm not sure about this question.
--
Nathan Doss ndoss AT mtlaurel.org
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(),
Nathan Doss, 09/01/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Jon Svendsen, 09/01/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(),
Nathan Doss, 09/02/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Ryan Abrams, 09/02/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(),
Robin Cook, 09/02/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Eric Sandall, 09/02/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Harley J Pig, 09/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]Second proposal for edit_file(), Nathan Doss, 09/02/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.