From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 21 08:24:55 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC9A0AF5 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:24:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88702C72 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:24:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from AlfredMacbookAir.local (unknown [50.204.88.5]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDFEB1A3C19 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 01:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <537C62D5.9030503@mu.org> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 01:24:53 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [GSoC] Machine readable output from userland utilities References: <49E9736E-AD14-4647-8B15-30603D01360C@mail.bg> <91FE2526-F21C-42AB-BECB-058DBA975A9E@cederstrand.dk> <537C2993.1060206@mu.org> <537C335C.3060105@mu.org> <2ac30e8c9d22b09dacb4446722a5b61e.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <2ac30e8c9d22b09dacb4446722a5b61e.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 08:24:55 -0000 On 5/20/14, 10:51 PM, Chris H wrote: >> On 5/20/14, 9:58 PM, Chris H wrote: >>>> >>> Greetings, all. >>> I may be getting into this thread a bit late in the game. But if I >>> understand the gist of this correctly; isn't all this pretty much what >>> Perl was intended for? >>> >>> All the best. >> I can't tell if you're late or early since the connection is breaking >> up, but from what I can make out you're stuck in 1997. > LOL. That's good. :) > I'm clearly missing something -- no, not the 21st century. ;) > But just for the record; I meant nothing negative by my assertion. > It just /seemed/ like Perl would/could be capable. Perl would be perfectly capable if it was 1997. What are you suggesting? Seriously? -Alfred