|
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Buckminster Book available (rev 0.5) [message #476280 is a reply to message #468505] |
Wed, 05 August 2009 23:48 |
Henrik Lindberg Messages: 2509 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
The text is now changed to read:
"As an example, if you want an attribute in component-C to include the
artifacts ‘g’, and ‘h’, you can declare the attribute’s base to be an
empty string (base=""), and use the paths ‘plugins/g’,
and ‘plugins/h’. You get the same result if you instead set the base
like this: base="plugins", and set the paths to just ‘g’ and ‘h’. Does
it matter which you use? The same files are referenced in both cases.
The answer is: yes, it matters when you are copying the result. Let’s
say you copy the result to a location ‘Z’. In the first case you would
get ‘Z/plugins/g’ and ‘Z/plugins/h’, and in the second case you would
get ‘Z/g’, and ‘Z/h’."
I hope that is clearer.
- henrik
Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Hi, no, not a typo, but some commas would make it easier to read. I will
> rephrase it.
> - henrik
>
> Tas Frangoullides wrote:
>> First line on page 69 is hard to follow. Might be a typo.
>>
>> Tas
>>
>> "Henrik Lindberg" <henrik.lindberg@cloudsmith.com> wrote in message
>> news:h4o8q9$ria$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>> New Draft of Buckminster Book is available at http://tinyurl.com/ncv4lq
>>>
>>> This is version 0.5 of the book, and it is now getting near
>>> completion. I (think) have one or two more examples to write, and
>>> then final editing and polish.
>>>
>>> Your feedback is much appreciated.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> - henrik
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Buckminster Book available (rev 0.5) [message #480863 is a reply to message #480858] |
Tue, 18 August 2009 17:27 |
|
Please stop cross-posting this topic over both newsgroups.
Thanks,
Thomas Hallgren
On 08/18/2009 07:16 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Thanks,
> fixed in 0.6.
> - henrik
> Tas Frangoullides wrote:
>> Hi Henrik,
>>
>> Page 152, Section "Access to prerequisites and product location",
>> First sentence. There appears to be a small typo on the word 'though',
>> which I think should be 'thought'.
>>
>> Tas
>>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04240 seconds