> Ideally, I'd like to be able to tell ack: "*always* exclude
> files of these types, even if I provide them on the command line".
This is intentional. My intent is that if you specify something on
the command line, ack should not try to second-guess you.
If we had an --exclude-files='A*.tmp' then you could do
$ ack foo A* --exclude-files='A*.tmp'
or even more likely
$ ack foo A* --exclude-files='*.tmp'
Basically, if it's on the command line, ack better believe it.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => an...@petdance.com => www.theworkinggeek.com => AIM:petdance
> This is intentional. My intent is that if you specify something on
> the command line, ack should not try to second-guess you.
>
> Basically, if it's on the command line, ack better believe it.
Some of these philosophical issues need to get into the as-yet-
unwritten ack FAQ.
xoxo,
Andy
I don't see how that could be debatable 'philosophy' .
isn't that axiomatic at the command line ?
but yes, documenting assumptions and philospophy is important for
external communications and spinning up new community members too.
--
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill....@gmail.com
This is intentional. My intent is that if you specify something on
On Jun 14, 2009, at 9:56 PM, turnstep wrote:
> Ideally, I'd like to be able to tell ack: "*always* exclude
> files of these types, even if I provide them on the command line".
the command line, ack should not try to second-guess you.
I don't see how that could be debatable 'philosophy' .
>> This is intentional. My intent is that if you specify something on
>> the command line, ack should not try to second-guess you.
>> Basically, if it's on the command line, ack better believe it.
> Some of these philosophical issues need to get into the as-yet-
> unwritten ack FAQ.
isn't that axiomatic at the command line ?
but yes, documenting assumptions and philospophy is important for
external communications and spinning up new community members too.