Am Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:26:32 +0100 schrieb Christopher Roy Bratusek <zanghar freenet de>: > Am Sat, 13 Feb 2010 23:14:20 +0100 > schrieb Christoph Ruegge <cruegge gmx de>: > > > Hi. The attached version works for me. But I think the function should > > probably be called "define-cycle-or-exec", just "cycle-or-exec" may be > > confusing. Additionally, cycle-or-exec-backend makes it possible to > > use functions for `prog', but in that case `prog' should not be used > > in the constructed names of the cycling commands (it maybe shouldn't > > be used for generic shell command strings as well...) > > Thanks. -1 for my lisp knowledge. I'm not sure about the final name... > define-cycle-or-exec-command-pair would be the most correct, but it's too long. > > cycle-or-exec-pair? define-cycle-or-exec? cycle-or-exec? Hmm... > > Chris > Updated version with `name' arguement and examples. Chris -- Re[20]: flame Gesendet von energyman am Sa, 2. Jun 2007 um 16:14 Jaguar? Der häufiger in die Werkstatt muß, als zum Tanken. Jaguar, die für jede Stunde fahrt 3 Stunden Pflege brauchen? Also du hättest kaum einen besseren Vergleich finden können. Allerdings denke ich, daß GNOME doch mehr einem Lada gleicht.
Attachment:
cycle-or-exec.jl
Description: Binary data