11–20 of 36 posts
Regarding the watermark generation process, although the bash script works, I immediately reach for my old friend (GNU) make(1) for that kind of task. Here's the Makefile: all: watermark done:=$(wildcard *-BD.pdf) src:=$(filter-out $(done),$(wildcard *.pdf)) marked:=$(patsubst %.pdf,%-BD.pdf,$(src)) watermark: $(marked) %-BD.pdf: %.pdf ./watermark_script.sh $ The done + filter-out mumbo jumbo is there just because wi…
Regarding the watermark generation process, although the bash script works, I immediately reach for my old friend (GNU) make(1) for that kind of task. Here's the Makefile: all: watermark done:=$(wildcard *-BD.pdf) src:=$(filter-out $(done),$(wildcard *.pdf)) marked:=$(patsubst %.pdf,%-BD.pdf,$(src)) watermark: $(marked) %-BD.pdf: %.pdf ./watermark_script.sh $ The done + filter-out mumbo jumbo is there just because wi…
I'm sorry if I missed this, but why would you use make instead of bash?
make figures out which files need updating
make allows to write pattern rules (.c.o:, or %.o: %.c)
you don't need to move files out of the 'inbox'
to ignore them
regenerating a file is a touch(1) away
make is descriptive, not imperative (invaluable
readability when you're coming back on it years later)
should you ever need a second transformative step or
a new dependency, it's trivial to insert, and make
will figure stuff out
make can trash intermediate results automatically
make is crazy fast
make variables are not environment variables
make has multiple variable assignations, resulting in
some early/late evaluation system (early with :=,
late with =, $() is always late unless part of a :=)
make outputs commands as they're executed (not with a global)
make outputs nothing when commands are prefixed with @ (not with a global)
make interrupts itself on a chain failure
each make recipe line is executed in a distinct shell
Of course I would not write everything in make. But knowing what make can do makes it the obvious choice for some tasks, and helps you coming up with a robust task/generator system in a snap, whereas coming up with a task/generator system in bash quickly is already not that easy, and making it robust even less.
I found this a very intrusive site - I really dislike these animated slide in fade in distractions.
Not only the slide-in nonsense, but also the wiggling "Try Me!" arrow on the right. "You may also like" panels are becoming the Clippy of blogs and news sites.
What's the "try me" pointing to? I tried clicking it and it did nothing, scrolling down it just points to blank right margin all the way ...?
I have no problem with "you may also like" and have found the links useful on occassion; anything animated without user interaction however is generally a turn off for me.
[1] http://github.com/l3ib/fsniper [2] http://inotify.aiken.cz/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only the slide-in nonsense, but also the wiggling "Try Me!" arrow on the right. "You may also like" panels are becoming the Clippy of blogs and news sites.
Didn't see any of it with noscript on. What's the "try me" pointing to? I tried clicking it and it did nothing, scrolling down it just points to blank right margin all the way ...? I have no problem with "you may also like" and have found the links useful on occassion; anything animated without user interaction however is generally a turn off for me.
Some kind of feedback tool about the site.