[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: currently doable? Indirect notation used w/a hash

From: Linda Walsh
Subject: Re: currently doable? Indirect notation used w/a hash
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:30:35 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird

Chris Down wrote:
On 14 Jun 2013 10:21, "Linda Walsh" <address@hidden> wrote:
Please, no more brittle export hacks. I'm already crying enough at
function exports.

Brittle would be bad.  Pliant and chewy would be much better, I agree.

Perhaps you might explain what you mean by brittle?  Like the export hacks
you get in the Antarctic in June?  The word brittle with export doesn't
seem to fit very well.  What happened to your functions?  Don't they work?

You are aware of *how* they work, yes? (with apologies for the terse
replies, I'm on my phone)
        They are put in the environment as strings, no?
        That seems fairly sound for most uses.  It's far from bullet proof,
but this is unencrypted SHELL we are talking about, so  for it's use case,
I don't see why it would be such a problem.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]