[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both?
From: |
Stefan Kangas |
Subject: |
bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both? |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Jul 2022 15:41:24 +0200 |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> > net-utils-machine-at-point does not seem very useful to me (it seems
> > to pick up any word whether or not it looks like a domain name?)
>
> Is it really any worse than not showing any possibly useful default at
> all?
I found it much worse, but this was mostly due to using the obsolete
INITIAL-CONTENTS argument (which meant you had to delete that less
than useful input to type something useful). So I've now changed
`dig' to use a standard default instead (commit 7b84f9a5d8).
> > but perhaps we could use thing-at-point instead?
>
> If thing-at-point can guess machines better, sure, why not? But if it
> isn't better, why not use net-utils-machine-at-point?
It seems like the ffap versions are strictly better, so I've replaced
the net-utils-* versions with ffap-* (commit a651c309fd).
- bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both?, Stefan Kangas, 2022/07/07
- bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both?, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/07/07
- bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both?, Robert Pluim, 2022/07/07
- bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both?, Stefan Kangas, 2022/07/07
- bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both?, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/07/07
- bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both?, Stefan Kangas, 2022/07/07
- bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both?, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/07/07
- bug#56432: run-dig vs dig -- do we need both?,
Stefan Kangas <=