omitting repo headers with 'mr run'
joey at kitenet.net
Tue Feb 21 18:00:49 CET 2012
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the vcs-home