Hi Andy,
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:44:33 -0600
Andy Lester <a
...@petdance.com> wrote:
> > --type-add
> > php=es.inc
> You can't do "es.inc" in ack 1.x. ack 2.x will be much more flexible.
I noticed that a great deal of the questions posted here are being answered
with "it *will* be fixed in Ack 2.x" (i.e: sometime in the future). In the
meantime, we are stuck helpless with only Ack 1.x, and while the Ack 2.x beta
only supports a very small subset of its flags and functionality and is quite
unusable.
I recall that Ack 2.x has been under development for many months now -
possibly about two years. Why does it take so long? Wouldn't an adaptation of
the existing Ack 1.x have taken much less time than that? If you think a
complete rewrite was in order, then it must have been justified by a faster
development time, which doesn't appear to be the case.
I would have contributed to Ack, but I'm unhappy with some of the design
decisions in its code, such as the deliberately procedural and non-OOP
interface, which are not going to be addressed in Ack 2.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
> > 2. Would ack recognize something like php=*.inc?
> No.
> > 3. If I used -a and then arguments like --nosql, would it make ack
> > switch from a whitelist to a blacklist?
> Yes, except that I'm pretty sure -a makes all file type checking stop.
> xoxo,
> Andy
> --
> Andy Lester => a...@petdance.com => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish
http://www.shlomifish.org/ "Star Trek: We, the Living Dead" -
http://shlom.in/st-wtld Chuck Norris can make the statement “This statement is false.” a true one.
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .