LWP::Simple - Terminal won't but BBEdit will.
Hi, I came across something odd editing a script with BBEdit. The BBEdit #! menu has a 'Run' command and a 'Run in Terminal' command. The script below works fine when I use the Run command, but returns HTTP response code 500 when I use Run in Terminal. I tried running it directly from Terminal and I get the same result, HTTP response code 500. I also noticed that getstore() returns 500 as a one-liner from Terminal (but getprint() works fine). What gives? Regards, Andrew #!/usr/bin/perl use warnings; use strict; use LWP::Simple; my $url = 'http://www.google.com'; my $file = 'Users/andrewbr/Desktop/google.html'; my $res = getstore($url, $file) or die Couldn't get/store $url; print $res;
Re: LWP::Simple - Terminal won't but BBEdit will.
On 7/9/06 at 6:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sherm Pendley) wrote: On Jul 9, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Andrew Brosnan wrote: my $file = 'Users/andrewbr/Desktop/google.html'; Easy fix - add a / to the beginning of $file to make it a fully- qualified path. Ahh, that was a typo...thanks for proofreading me! :-) I thought I was loosing it. Andrew
Delay in BBEdit/TextWrangler
The script below prints a list of 34 Burmese characters. I happen to
have a font for these but I'm not sure that matters.
If I run the script in BBEdit or TextWrangler just after launching
the apps, there is a huge delay before the output is printed (up to
15 seconds) but subsequent runs produce no special delay.
#!/usr/bin/perl
binmode STDOUT, q~:utf8~;
for (4096..4129) {
$c = chr();
$text .= qq~$_\t$c$/~;
}
print $text;
I get the same sort of behaviour if I run the script in Script Editor
or Smile as a shell script, but there is no delay running it in
Terminal.
Can anyone explain what causes this delay?
JD
Re: Delay in BBEdit/TextWrangler
On 2005.12.7, at 04:10 AM, John Delacour wrote:
The script below prints a list of 34 Burmese characters. I happen to
have a font for these but I'm not sure that matters.
If I run the script in BBEdit or TextWrangler just after launching the
apps, there is a huge delay before the output is printed (up to 15
seconds) but subsequent runs produce no special delay.
First guess is font caching, which is mostly the time to find and load
glyphs. It looks like you might be also implicitly invoking the
relevant parsing attribute tables, which will also take some time to
find and load.
#!/usr/bin/perl
binmode STDOUT, q~:utf8~;
for (4096..4129) {
$c = chr();
$text .= qq~$_\t$c$/~;
}
print $text;
I get the same sort of behaviour if I run the script in Script Editor
or Smile as a shell script, but there is no delay running it in
Terminal.
Perhaps this reflects that terminal has advanced quite a bit since
jaguar, to the point of pre-loading many of the relevant tables?
Perhaps Script Editor and Smile are also loading some sort of run-time
interpreter which has to do its own caching of font and parsing tables?
Perhaps those two are using Java, maybe? Java does a lot of pre-flight
checking both syntax and rudimentary semantics for security purposes.
Perhaps they are loading a separate copy of the perl interpreter?
Can anyone explain what causes this delay?
Good question.
JD
Re: Delay in BBEdit/TextWrangler
At 6:41 am +0900 7/12/05, Joel Rees wrote:
First guess is font caching, which is mostly the time to find and
load glyphs. It looks like you might be also implicitly invoking the
relevant parsing attribute tables, which will also take some time to
find and load.
It's interesting (to me) that if I go for Korean characters rather
than Burmese, there is no appreciable delay. It seems some sort of
obstacle exists in the way of finding the necessary font/glyphs.
#!/usr/bin/perl
binmode STDOUT, q~:utf8~;
###for (4096..4129) {
for (44032..44066) {
$c = chr();
$text .= qq~$_\t$c$/~;
}
print $text;
I'll try to narrow it down by testing with various runs of characters.
JD
Re: BBEdit/Interarchy
On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Ken Williams wrote: On Jun 2, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Bill Stephenson wrote: So I guess what I'm asking is if there a way to get either of these apps to upload a file with a new name and rename it after the upload is complete with one click. Obviously, this doesn't entirely solve the problem, but it does reduce the potential. Actually, it *would* entirely solve the problem. Renaming a file is an atomic operation, there's no point at which anybody could get a partial file. People still reading the old file would be fine too, even if the rename happened while they're in the middle of reading; the old file is readable until they close it. Peter pointed out in a private email that this isn't reliable using FTP's rename functionality (if your FTP even supports it) - what I meant in the above, though I wasn't clear, was to use /bin/mv on the server, not a rename through the FTP connection. -Ken
Re: BBEdit/Interarchy
On Jun 2, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Bill Stephenson wrote:
So I guess what I'm asking is if there a way to get either of these
apps to upload a file with a new name and rename it after the upload
is complete with one click. Obviously, this doesn't entirely solve
the problem, but it does reduce the potential.
Actually, it *would* entirely solve the problem. Renaming a file is
an atomic operation, there's no point at which anybody could get a
partial file. People still reading the old file would be fine too,
even if the rename happened while they're in the middle of reading;
the old file is readable until they close it.
Peter pointed out in a private email that this isn't reliable using
FTP's rename functionality (if your FTP even supports it) - what I
meant in the above, though I wasn't clear, was to use /bin/mv on the
server, not a rename through the FTP connection.
-Ken
Thank you to everyone for the help.
Peter provided a great explanation about why FTP is not suited for this
problem. I played with the Applescript Script Recorder and didn't get
too far, there may be a way to use Applescript, I just don't know much
about it.
Here's what I did come up with to make this easier for me..
Open the file from the remote server with BBEdit.
Use the Save a Copy to FTP Server menu command and save the file with
a new name
Then I wrote this cgi script on the remote server to chmod and rename
the file...
===
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use CGI;
use CGI::Carp('fatalsToBrowser');
my $Q = new CGI;
print $Q-header;
print $Q-start_html;
my $mode = 0755;
chmod $mode, 'app.cgi-new' or die (Error 1: $!);
rename(app.cgi-new,app.cgi) or die(Error 2: $!);
print All Done;
print $Q-end_html;
===
This isn't as good as I'd like, but it's easier than what I did before.
I know this solution now takes this pretty much way OT and so I
apologize...
Kindest Regards,
--
Bill Stephenson
Re: BBEdit/Interarchy
At 7:39 +0900 4/6/05, Joel Rees wrote: On 2005.6.4, at 04:31 AM, Ken Williams wrote: Actually, it *would* entirely solve the problem. Renaming a file is an atomic operation, there's no point at which anybody could get a partial file. People still reading the old file would be fine too, even if the rename happened while they're in the middle of reading; the old file is readable until they close it. Peter pointed out in a private email that this isn't reliable using FTP's rename functionality I'd like a peek at what he wrote, if nobody minds. Sorry, I was trying to reduce the noise as we drift further and further off topic, but it seems ti just added more. At 23:27 +0800 3/6/05, Peter N Lewis wrote: We're getting a bit too esoteric to continue on the list, but this depends on the FTP server allowing rename/overwrite, which is far from guaranteed, even under unix. There are quite a few FTP servers which will give an error in that case, so you would need to delete the file first and then rename, destroying the atomicness of the operation. (if your FTP even supports it) - what I meant in the above, though I wasn't clear, was to use /bin/mv on the server, not a rename through the FTP connection. Now, I wouldn't want to stir too much oil into the water, but I'm imagining strange things like, ssh would not have such problems (assuming you knew that the server was a regular *NIX server and the server's file system was a system with proper inodes)? Yes, presuming you ssh in, and then apply the old permissions to the new file and then do a mv (much like the script Bill ended up writing), you'd be safe for at least the mainstream unix systems I would think. Enjoy, Peter. -- http://www.stairways.com/ http://download.stairways.com/
Re: BBEdit/Interarchy
On Jun 1, 2005, at 4:40 PM, Jay Savage wrote: Bill, Just upload the file to something like my_script.cgi.new. It can take as long as it needs to transfer. Once it's transferred, rename it. HTH, -- jay daggerquill [at] gmail [dot] com http://www.engatiki.org Thanks for the reply Jay, I've done that too, but it's a rather laborious solution to what must be a rather common task and I'm thinking there could be a more automated way to deal with it. Since both BBEdit and Interarchy are already built to work together I was hoping that someone more familiar with their guts may have worked on it already. So I guess what I'm asking is if there a way to get either of these apps to upload a file with a new name and rename it after the upload is complete with one click. Obviously, this doesn't entirely solve the problem, but it does reduce the potential. Kindest Regards, -- Bill Stephenson
Re: BBEdit/Interarchy
On 6/2/05, Bill Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 1, 2005, at 4:40 PM, Jay Savage wrote: Bill, Just upload the file to something like my_script.cgi.new. It can take as long as it needs to transfer. Once it's transferred, rename it. HTH, -- jay daggerquill [at] gmail [dot] com http://www.engatiki.org Thanks for the reply Jay, I've done that too, but it's a rather laborious solution to what must be a rather common task and I'm thinking there could be a more automated way to deal with it. Since both BBEdit and Interarchy are already built to work together I was hoping that someone more familiar with their guts may have worked on it already. So I guess what I'm asking is if there a way to get either of these apps to upload a file with a new name and rename it after the upload is complete with one click. Obviously, this doesn't entirely solve the problem, but it does reduce the potential. Kindest Regards, The answer is probably no. At least not out of the box. It's not really all that common, at least not any more: most mission critical apps are maintained on reasonably high speed connections. In most cases if you're working on an application where a customer just absolutely can't get a 505 error, ever. The comapany pays for a cable or T1--or at least DSL--connection. And usually, if it's that important, especially if you're using renaming to aviod connection problems, you don't want the process to be automated. You want to do it by hand to make sure it works, and you want to verify the checksums on both the download and the upload, just to be sure you've got everything. So no, this probably isn't as common as it seems, although it was certainly more common 5 years ago. That said, interarchy is extremely AppleScriptable. You should be able to whip up something fairly quickly. If you poke around the Interarchy users group (it's linked from the website) there may even be something out there already. Anothe option would be to set up a cron job on the server to periodically rename files with a certain extension. HTH, -- jay daggerquill [at] gmail [dot] com http://www.engatiki.org
Re: HTML::Tidy Filter for BBEdit?
I think HTML::Tidy doesn't offer what you're seeking: looks like it's a validation tool, not a pretty-print tool. So your output is empty if things are well in the world of your html, and warnings/errors if there are problems validating the string HTML::Tidy is fed. Well, yes and no. Perhaps it seems that way because you're seeing the HTML::Tidy documentation offering only to do those things. But having installed the tidy library on my Mac, I can type tidy test.html at the command line and have it give warnings and also print to STDOUT a fixed version of my file, e.g. it might say 'Missing attribute on line 6', and then it will print out a new version of the file with that attribute added. The option -i will do indenting, i.e. rudimentary formatting, and the -m option will edit the file in place rather than dump the corrected version out. So I still remain baffled by the module. Does its clean function transform a string in place? It doesn't seem to. Where are the options? Is it perhaps confused about where tidy is on my system (/opt/local/bin/tidy) ? Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 9333 3488 Senior Developer, ABC Online http://www.abc.net.au/
Re: HTML::Tidy Filter for BBEdit?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do the items in the Markup-Tidy submenu do what you're seeking? I'm pretty sure they hook into a copy of HTML Tidy that's embedded in BBEdit. There is an HTML Tidy in BBEdit, but it only works on the whole document. The filter posted earlier works with the current selection, which I think was the point of the question. :) -- brian d foy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HTML::Tidy Filter for BBEdit?
Hi John,
you wrote...
my question is, how can I create the same sort of script which will
use HTML::Tidy?
Both the module and the library are installed and running OK on my
Mac, but I can't seem to get it to work, in fact I can't even figure
out from the documentation how to get any output from it at all!
I think HTML::Tidy doesn't offer what you're seeking: looks like it's a
validation tool, not a pretty-print tool. So your output is empty if things
are well in the world of your html, and warnings/errors if there are problems
validating the string HTML::Tidy is fed.
The following works as a filter in BBEdit, but (as above) I don't think
it'll do what you're seeking!
Do the items in the Markup-Tidy submenu do what you're seeking? I'm
pretty sure they hook into a copy of HTML Tidy that's embedded in BBEdit.
Cheers,
Paul
--
#!/usr/local/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use HTML::Tidy;
local $/;
my $input=;
my $dummyfilename='input';
my $tidy = new HTML::Tidy;
$tidy-parse($dummyfilename, $input );
for my $message ( $tidy-messages ) {
print $message-as_string;
}
--
Re: BBEdit as HTML validator back end?
http://validator.w3.org/source/ Instructions for that one are only a couple clicks away: http://www.mediaville.net/articles/validator/ Thank you. I had no idea. Checking it out now. It's possible to install these tools on LINUX using PPM I think you're confused - Linux is not an ancronym, and PPM is for Windows. :-) Yes, indeed, sorry. Hangover. Please substitute Linux and RPM.
Re: BBEdit as HTML validator back end?
I'm working through the instructions on the mediaville.net site, but it's going to take a while from the looks of things. How about my original question, just for the sake of it? I can, for instance, easily create an AppleScript which tells BBEdit to validate a certain file and write the results to another file -- how hard would it be to hook in to that with a CGI script? On Nov 11, 2004, at 7:06 PM, John Horner wrote: I would like to be able to install a browser-based HTML validator on my OSX web server
Installing W3C validator (was Re: BBEdit as HTML validator back end?)
You might also want to look at this article: http://developer.apple.com/internet/opensource/validator.html Between it and the mediaville.net article (and W3C's own installation instructions at http://validator.w3.org/docs/install.html ), I was able to get the W3C validator working on my mac (OS X 10.3.5) just yesterday. I had to install Fink to get OpenSP working; my attempts to build it from source failed, but other than that, it wasn't too tricky. I, too, considered how to work BBEdit into the mix, but gave up on it without doing too much digging into its AppleScript dictionary. I find AppleScript very frustrating to deal with. But if you have the AppleScript to get BBEdit to write its validation results to a file, it sounds like you've got the hard part taken care of, and could easily have the cgi read in the file and display it. BTW, I'd be interested in seeing your AppleScript, if you'd be willing to email it to me, preferably off-list, since it's not really on topic for this list. -- David Dierauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, John Horner wrote: I'm working through the instructions on the mediaville.net site, but it's going to take a while from the looks of things. How about my original question, just for the sake of it? I can, for instance, easily create an AppleScript which tells BBEdit to validate a certain file and write the results to another file -- how hard would it be to hook in to that with a CGI script? On Nov 11, 2004, at 7:06 PM, John Horner wrote: I would like to be able to install a browser-based HTML validator on my OSX web server
Re: BBEdit as HTML validator back end?
On Nov 12, 2004, at 5:24 AM, John Horner wrote: I can, for instance, easily create an AppleScript which tells BBEdit to validate a certain file and write the results to another file -- how hard would it be to hook in to that with a CGI script? If BBEdit can be driven via AppleScript, you should also be able to use Mac::Glue to drive it. Or, you could run your AppleScript with the osascript tool. sherm--
Re: BBEdit as HTML validator back end?
On 13/11/2004, at 5:48 AM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
If BBEdit can be driven via AppleScript, you should also be able to
use Mac::Glue to drive it. Or, you could run your AppleScript with the
osascript tool.
That got me on the right track -- to the extent that this is already
working:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use Mac::AppleScript::Glue;
use LWP::Simple;
print Enter URL:\n - ;
my $URL = STDIN || die $!;
getstore( $URL, /path/to/tempfile.html ) || die;
my $BB = new Mac::AppleScript::Glue::Application('BBEdit')
|| die $!;
my $results =
$BB-check_syntax(
file = path:to:tempfile.html )
|| die $!;
foreach my $item ( @{$results} ) {
print 'Line '
. $item-{'result_line'} . ': '
. $item-{'message'} . \n;
}
I don't quite understand the results data that's coming back from the
Glue object, but the basics are already there. Of course if it was
going to be a CGI script there's a lot of other stuff to do but the
concept is proven at least.
BBEdit as HTML validator back end?
I would like to be able to install a browser-based HTML validator on my OSX web server, like the W3C: http://validator.w3.org/source/ or WDG: http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/source.html validators. It's possible to install these tools on LINUX using PPM but being able to hack them and the associated C libraries to work on OSX is way beyond my capabilities. But then it occurred to me I already have an application which does HTML validation which works on OSX - BBEdit. Is it a crazy idea that it might be possible to pipe a file or string to BBEdit's Check Syntax command and retrieve the output? Where would I start with something like that?
Re: BBEdit as HTML validator back end?
On Nov 11, 2004, at 7:06 PM, John Horner wrote: I would like to be able to install a browser-based HTML validator on my OSX web server, like the W3C: http://validator.w3.org/source/ Instructions for that one are only a couple clicks away: http://www.mediaville.net/articles/validator/ It's possible to install these tools on LINUX using PPM I think you're confused - Linux is not an ancronym, and PPM is for Windows. :-) sherm--
Re: BBEdit 8.0
I cannot get autocompletion to work with jEdit 4.2 on Panther. Do you have that issue as well? Robert Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ray Zimmerman wrote: On Sep 9, 2004, at 8:41 PM, Ian Ragsdale wrote: Effortless transparent handling switching of line endings. Powerful HTML tools Shell worksheets (allows easy editing running of shell commands) Multi-file regular expression find replace functionality, with nameable saveable expressions Transparent FTP/SFTP support Easy scriptability and integration with command line tools And don't forget ... multi-file diff, with side-by-side highlighting (integrated with CVS, too). en-tabbing, de-tabbing re-wrapping text inserting, removing line prefixes/suffixes ... to name just a few more. I'm sure many/most of these things are easily doable by someone who's mastered vi or emacs, but it's the learning curve that's kept me from ever doing that. Of course if you are looking for an editor that covers most/all of these and more, and runs on other platforms, and happens to be open-source, you might want to check out jEdit - http://jedit.org/ - There are at least a few jEdit users who are old-BBEdit users, and there's even a page on switching from BBEdit to jEdit (that could use some updating!) http://community.jedit.org/cgi-bin/TWiki/view/Main/SwitchingFromBBEdit Pete
Re: BBEdit 8.0
I cannot get autocompletion to work with jEdit 4.2 on Panther. Do you have that issue as well? Works here... (10.3.5 and 4.2 final) Bild 1.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document I guess you have checked edit mode = perl in Buffer Options/Global Options? ___ Peter Hartmann mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BBEdit 8.0 vs JEdit
The Ghost wrote: I'd really like to reiterate the suggestion to try JEdit. It used to have some problems on OS X, but in 4.2 Final they are cleared up. It has everything with the SFTP, multi-file search/replace with regex (better than BBEdit's in IMO), and all that fancy stuff, the only thing it doesn't currently have to my knowledge is the ability to execute a script from the program. However, with it's plugin architecture I believe this will come in the future. Ryan As long as someone brought up jEdit, I'll toss in my 2 cents... You can execute scripts from jEdit, there are a number of ways, using the console plugin, a commando file, a macro, etc... Perhaps the problem is that there are multiple ways of doing things, so there's not the one true way to do something, but asking on the mailing list usually gets you some good answers. A few other nice things about jEdit are: active development, good support, open-source, multi-platform... and if you like to customize, extend, and hack the heck out of your editor, it's ready, willing, and able... Pete
Re: BBEdit 8.0 vs JEdit
On Sep 12, 2004, at 1:32 PM, The Ghost wrote: Other than JEdit, my other choice would be KDE's KATE (K Advance Text Editor). (This may now be Quantra, I don't know). Excellent syntax highlighting control, integrated command line, a nice file browser (good for looking at logs quickly), The only problem is I don't know how to put it on a Mac, but I'm sure it can be done. If anyone knows how to do this or can point me to the right documentation it'd be much appreciated. KATE is available through Fink. I'm not certain what specific package, although kdeutils3 or kdevelop seems likely. sherm--
BBEdit 8.0 vs JEdit
I'd really like to reiterate the suggestion to try JEdit. It used to have some problems on OS X, but in 4.2 Final they are cleared up. It has everything with the SFTP, multi-file search/replace with regex (better than BBEdit's in IMO), and all that fancy stuff, the only thing it doesn't currently have to my knowledge is the ability to execute a script from the program. However, with it's plugin architecture I believe this will come in the future. Other than JEdit, my other choice would be KDE's KATE (K Advance Text Editor). (This may now be Quantra, I don't know). Excellent syntax highlighting control, integrated command line, a nice file browser (good for looking at logs quickly), The only problem is I don't know how to put it on a Mac, but I'm sure it can be done. If anyone knows how to do this or can point me to the right documentation it'd be much appreciated. That's my 2 cents. Ryan
Re: BBEdit 8.0
At 14:50 +1000 10/9/04, John Horner wrote: Multi-file regular expression find replace functionality, with nameable saveable expressions That's the killer-app feature for me. I could actually say that I think it's BBEdit that gave me my first glimpse of the power of Perl. Also, if you're a Perl BBEdit user and haven't already, check out the BBEdit Help - Grep reference, it is a very useful reference for all the PCRE stuff, especially useful for things in the Advanced Grep Topics section like zero width negative lookbehind assertions (which if you're like me you can never remember what sequence of line noise they might correspond to). BBEdit is a very powerful text editor, but where it really out shines other text editors is its attention to detail (like handling a file being renamed underneath it and updating as the file changes, and such) and the way it handles multiple files (I like the Window palette, but now also with multiple documents per window), especially for things like multifile find replace Enjoy, Peter. -- http://www.stairways.com/ http://download.stairways.com/
Re: BBEdit 8.0
On 10 Sep 2004, at 09:59, Andy Holyer wrote: On 10 Sep 2004, at 02:54, Doug McNutt wrote: At 19:41 -0500 9/9/04, Ian Ragsdale wrote: Shell worksheets (allows easy editing running of shell commands) And there is by far the most important item. When the MacPerl port ran as an MPW tool it looked a whole lot like UNIX perl and you could run it from a command line, with arguments, and redirect output to another open window or to a file. Any open window, if it contained shell commands, could be invoked as a tool by simply naming it. I am told, by my son, that the best replacement for MPW in OS neXt is really emacs but it requires that I learn smalltalk or something similar and, though I have read the book, I just ain't there. X11 isn't that easy to use either with my four monitors. Lisp, actually. You don't really need to know ant coding to use emacs (I don't recall doing any programming at least in the last ten years or so). Then again, I learned to use emacs some time early 1986, so your milage may well vary. The GNU version for OS X which runs windowing is really nice with the one irritation that it uses emacs cut/paste/etc control keys rather than mac ones (so paste is ctrl-y, for example). Before someone pops up with why would they do that? remember most of the emacs control-key bindings date back to the TOPS-10 days, so they probably predate Unix, let alone the Macintosh. --- Andy Holyer, Technical stuff Hedgehog Broadband, 11 Marlborough Place Brighton BN1 1UB 08451 260895 x 241 --- Andy Holyer, Technical stuff Hedgehog Broadband, 11 Marlborough Place Brighton BN1 1UB 08451 260895 x 241
Re: BBEdit 8.0
On Sep 9, 2004, at 5:41 PM, Ian Ragsdale wrote: Effortless transparent handling switching of line endings. It's the little things that matter, isn't it? You'd almost be able to write-off this feature as trivial until you start dealing with the hassles that line endings from different platforms can cause. Developing in a mixed platform environment can be a real nightmare. I do all my Perl scripting in BBEdit on OS X, almost exclusively, primarily to avoid issues with line endings. My boss works on a Windows machine and occasionally has to alter my scripts there (or data files associated with them) forgetting sometimes that Notepad will change the line breaks to DOS style which causes the script to fail online. He occasionally comments that he wishes there were something on Windows like BBEdit. I've done a lot of searching and a lot of asking around, but have yet to find such a thing. Is there a text editor (preferably something simple) on Windows that allows you to deal with line breaks the way BBEdit does? --Rick Anderson The only difference between me and a madman, is that I am not mad. -- Salvador Dali
Re: BBEdit 8.0
Good evening, On 9/9/04 at 3:06 PM -0400, Sherm Pendley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Safari and reload the page. I can configure Console.app to automagically pop itself to the front of the window stack whenever anything gets appended to Apache's (or some other) error log. Then you may also be interested in Tailer+. It simply tails a log file (can do so with ssh too) but it also highlights and strips lines based on criteria such as a regex. I find it great for getting to just the data I want to see in apache error logs. After Affrus and BBEdit, it's one of the most useful tools in my arsenal. Charlie -- Charlie Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] PO Box 141, Windsor, NSW 2756, Australia
Re: BBEdit 8.0
Ray Zimmerman wrote: On Sep 9, 2004, at 8:41 PM, Ian Ragsdale wrote: Effortless transparent handling switching of line endings. Powerful HTML tools Shell worksheets (allows easy editing running of shell commands) Multi-file regular expression find replace functionality, with nameable saveable expressions Transparent FTP/SFTP support Easy scriptability and integration with command line tools And don't forget ... multi-file diff, with side-by-side highlighting (integrated with CVS, too). en-tabbing, de-tabbing re-wrapping text inserting, removing line prefixes/suffixes ... to name just a few more. I'm sure many/most of these things are easily doable by someone who's mastered vi or emacs, but it's the learning curve that's kept me from ever doing that. Of course if you are looking for an editor that covers most/all of these and more, and runs on other platforms, and happens to be open-source, you might want to check out jEdit - http://jedit.org/ - There are at least a few jEdit users who are old-BBEdit users, and there's even a page on switching from BBEdit to jEdit (that could use some updating!) http://community.jedit.org/cgi-bin/TWiki/view/Main/SwitchingFromBBEdit Pete
Re: BBEdit 8.0
Seeing as this has devolved into an editor love-fest, rather than curse the darkness and that weird gas odor, I'll light a candle brighten things a bit more. (Or mangle metaphors, or something. I'll stop now.) I've been putting a copy of SubEthaEdit on all the Macs at work for a while now, but none of them seemed to use it until recently -- they were all just using BBEdit. But then someone noticed the networking abilities in SEE, and they've quickly started using it for collaborating on documents, interacting with people elsewhere in the office or over the internet, or even as a weird, hyperactive chat framework. I don't know of any other editor, on any platform, that can do the clever networking tricks that SubEthaEdit provides. You can have an arbitrary number of users simultaneously making multiple edits to a document with an indepentend insertion point into that document for each user, and everything happens live as everyone types. This can obviously get pretty chaotic, but as long as people follow a little bit of decorum (don't carelessly mess with each other's edits) then it isn't too bad. In theory it should be possible to get other editors hooked into the protocol that SEE uses, so that real editors like Vim, Emacs, and BBEdit can participate, but for now and for the foreseeable future, this capability is only available in SEE. That alone makes it worth using. Aside from that, it's a solid but mostly standard editor. It does things like automatic syntax highlighting and preservation of indent level (i.e. it will carry over from the previous line, but doesn't seem to have magic for increasing or decreasing at block boundaries); it can provide a web formatted version of HTML code; it provides regex search replace capabilities; and it has some kind of support for managing changes to a document, though I haven't played with this feature. Learn more here: http://www.codingmonkeys.de/subethaedit/ -- Chris Devers
Re: BBEdit 8.0
Is there a text editor (preferably something
simple) on Windows that allows you to deal with line breaks the way
BBEdit does?
UltraEdit does a fine job:
http://www.ultraedit.com/
-Steve
--
#! /usr/bin/perl -w
my @wish = qw/60 47 98 117 115 104 62/;
foreach (@wish) {
print chr($_);
};
Re: BBEdit 8.0
Hi Ken, I have been using emacs in one window and a terminal in another window to run the command line. I tried what you say and the control-z works to suspend emacs, but I can't seem to get the .login to work to pop me back into emacs. Does .login work when you start a new terminal window, or do I need to logout of my user id? Joe. On Sep 9, 2004, at 10:34 PM, Ken Williams wrote: text, and when I want to run commands I hit control-z and run a perl one-liner, or a 'wc' command, or whatever. Then, since I have bindkey ^Z run-fg-editor in my .login file, I just hit control-z again to drop me back into my editor. I almost never use emacs' shell integration, or write lisp functions, because I find the parent shell a more powerful tool. And this way I g
Re: BBEdit 8.0
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:13:43 -0700, Steve Axthelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a text editor (preferably something simple) on Windows that allows you to deal with line breaks the way BBEdit does? UltraEdit does a fine job: http://www.ultraedit.com/ ...where fine is defined as allows you to accidentally create documents with many different kinds of line endings and has a jump-to-function feature for perl scripts that is so buggy that it's nearly useless. I was not impressed when I used it. It's not even in the same galaxy as BBEdit. -John
Re: BBEdit 8.0
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:13:43 -0700, Steve Axthelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: UltraEdit does a fine job: http://www.ultraedit.com/ It does, but I prefer TextPad (http://www.textpad.com), if only for the fact that it's the only text editor I've ever seen that handles line wrapping in The Way It Should Be Done By Everybody. :-) I believe it's also slightly cheaper than UltraEdit (both TextPad and UltraEdit are $15-$20 cheaper than the BBEdit 8.0 *upgrade* price, and are every bit as good - market forces maybe, but if you have a Windows license knocking around it's *cheaper* to buy VPC and one of these puppies than it is to buy BBEdit on its own -- *plus* you get the capabilities to run x86-based operating systems). Thanks for everyone's comments, by the way. Text editors are the new religion, honestly ;-)
Re: BBEdit 8.0
At 11:37 PM -0500 9/2/04, Bill Stephenson wrote: Those BBEdit guys went and implemented another of my wish list feature requests! Remember the one about a button that allowed you to view output from a perl script in a browser? It's apparently in 8.0, as well as some other pretty cool new features. They also mention integration with Affrus. I tried out a demo a while back but haven't kept up on it. Anyone here using Affrus on a regular basis? Bill Stephenson I was using it. Liked it a lot, but it is currently incompatible with the version of Mac OS that I am running. If you are at Mac OSX 10.3.x I would recommend it, even though I have not been able to use it in several months. -Chuck-
Re: BBEdit 8.0
On Sep 3, 2004, at 12:37 AM, Bill Stephenson wrote: Those BBEdit guys went and implemented another of my wish list feature requests! Remember the one about a button that allowed you to view output from a perl script in a browser? It's apparently in 8.0, as well as some other pretty cool new features. With Mac OS X, I have a real Apache install to work with. I can edit CGI scripts and mod_perl handlers in-place, and simply cmd-tab to Safari and reload the page. I can configure Console.app to automagically pop itself to the front of the window stack whenever anything gets appended to Apache's (or some other) error log. I haven't looked at the whole feature list, but this one particular feature sounds like it's too late to be useful. All by itself, it would have been worth the upgrade price five years ago, when I was using BBEdit 5 on Mac OS 8.6. But now... why should I switch to using a CGI simulation, when the Real Thing (tm) is installed by default with the OS, and so smoothly integrated into the environment? sherm--
Re: BBEdit 8.0
On Sep 3, 2004, at 12:37 AM, Bill Stephenson wrote: Those BBEdit guys went and implemented another of my wish list feature requests! Remember the one about a button that allowed you to view output from a perl script in a browser? It's apparently in 8.0, as well as some other pretty cool new features. On Sep 9, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote: With Mac OS X, I have a real Apache install to work with. I can edit CGI scripts and mod_perl handlers in-place, and simply cmd-tab to Safari and reload the page. I can configure Console.app to automagically pop itself to the front of the window stack whenever anything gets appended to Apache's (or some other) error log. I haven't looked at the whole feature list, but this one particular feature sounds like it's too late to be useful. All by itself, it would have been worth the upgrade price five years ago, when I was using BBEdit 5 on Mac OS 8.6. But now... why should I switch to using a CGI simulation, when the Real Thing (tm) is installed by default with the OS, and so smoothly integrated into the environment? sherm-- Well, first off, I just think it's cool that they implemented a feature I requested. But beyond that, it's still cool because it does use the built-in apache/perl to accomplish this and it does so with a few less clicks (I think, I haven't used it yet) than what you describe above. BTW, I just figured out yesterday that you could monitor the Apache error_log with the Console. That's a handy thing to know about. I've been using the Terminal to tail the log file all this time :( Bill
BBEdit 8.0
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:07:52 -0500, Bill Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, first off, I just think it's cool that they implemented a feature I requested. But beyond that, it's still cool because it does use the built-in apache/perl to accomplish this and it does so with a few less clicks (I think, I haven't used it yet) than what you describe above. I'm curious as to the attraction of BBEdit. Coming from a Unix/Windows background, I find that whilst it seems pretty solid and has some nice features, it costs at least five times more than any sane person should be prepared to pay. But even taking that into account, it actually seems to do *less* (at least for me!) than the free alternatives that ship by default on OS X (personally, I use Vim). OK, so its integration into the enitre OS is generally a lot better than the free stuff, but... So why the attraction? Is it really only old OS =9 users that use it, or am I really missing something?
Re: BBEdit 8.0
On Sep 9, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Chris Carline wrote: I'm curious as to the attraction of BBEdit. Coming from a Unix/Windows background, I find that whilst it seems pretty solid and has some nice features, it costs at least five times more than any sane person should be prepared to pay. But even taking that into account, it actually seems to do *less* (at least for me!) than the free alternatives that ship by default on OS X (personally, I use Vim). I know vim, but not super well - what does it do that BBEdit does not? I imagine if you already know vi/vim well and have it customized to your liking, there's no need to pay for anything else. Personally, I've been using it off on for about 10 years and still don't know how to use most of it's features. Most of the time when I have advanced processing to do I copy the file locally and edit using BBEdit. OK, so its integration into the enitre OS is generally a lot better than the free stuff, but... Well, for Mac users that's a huge distinction, especially if you don't already know vi or emacs. There isn't really any learning curve to deal with. So why the attraction? Is it really only old OS =9 users that use it, or am I really missing something? Well, I imagine a lot of it's following started during the OS = 9 days, when things like vi or emacs weren't really available. It also served as a replacement for things like grep and sed which weren't available at the time. I'd imagine that for many people it's the interface - you can accomplish a ton of things that are doable with command line tools but that most people don't know how to do. Here are some of the things I find really useful: Effortless transparent handling switching of line endings. Powerful HTML tools Shell worksheets (allows easy editing running of shell commands) Multi-file regular expression find replace functionality, with nameable saveable expressions Transparent FTP/SFTP support Easy scriptability and integration with command line tools Ian
Re: BBEdit 8.0
On Sep 9, 2004, at 8:41 PM, Ian Ragsdale wrote: Well, I imagine a lot of it's following started during the OS = 9 days, when things like vi or emacs weren't really available. It also served as a replacement for things like grep and sed which weren't available at the time. I'd imagine that for many people it's the interface - you can accomplish a ton of things that are doable with command line tools but that most people don't know how to do. Here are some of the things I find really useful: Effortless transparent handling switching of line endings. Powerful HTML tools Shell worksheets (allows easy editing running of shell commands) Multi-file regular expression find replace functionality, with nameable saveable expressions Transparent FTP/SFTP support Easy scriptability and integration with command line tools And don't forget ... multi-file diff, with side-by-side highlighting (integrated with CVS, too). en-tabbing, de-tabbing re-wrapping text inserting, removing line prefixes/suffixes ... to name just a few more. I'm sure many/most of these things are easily doable by someone who's mastered vi or emacs, but it's the learning curve that's kept me from ever doing that. Ray
Re: BBEdit 8.0
At 19:41 -0500 9/9/04, Ian Ragsdale wrote: Shell worksheets (allows easy editing running of shell commands) And there is by far the most important item. When the MacPerl port ran as an MPW tool it looked a whole lot like UNIX perl and you could run it from a command line, with arguments, and redirect output to another open window or to a file. Any open window, if it contained shell commands, could be invoked as a tool by simply naming it. I am told, by my son, that the best replacement for MPW in OS neXt is really emacs but it requires that I learn smalltalk or something similar and, though I have read the book, I just ain't there. X11 isn't that easy to use either with my four monitors. BBEdit worksheets are still fairly new and I really hope they will migrate more and more closely to either MPW or emacs. As of now even emacs is not a real shell having to pass commands to the user's chosen shell. That makes handling the environment a pain just as it is in BBEdit. Each open document has its own associated shell process which doesn't talk to the others. MPW was a shell, of sorts, but the underlying operating system didn't have shells so the point is moot. As of version 8 you cannot save a working BBEdit worksheet as an executable perl script. You must first convert to a normal BBEdit document and save that while adding the appropriate shebang line and executable permission bits. (Yes. you can muck with OS 9 file type and creator codes but it's not approved.) It is so much easier to select a few lines of text and execute them than it is to play keyboard games with history arrays. . . I wax happy about the concept but I miss OS 9 and MPW. BBEdit is the best choice right now. Every once in a while there is a burst of activity requesting a Carbon version of MPW. Should Apple decide to release the source code and provide some kernel hooks for intercepting read and write requests from compiled code it could become a real open-source competitor but BBEdit could easily beat it out by incorporating selected content from tcsh, or bash, so that BBEdit itself becomes a real boy -- er, a shell -- rather than a wooden one with a long nose.. -- -- Halloween == Oct 31 == Dec 25 == Christmas --
Re: BBEdit 8.0
On Sep 9, 2004, at 8:54 PM, Doug McNutt wrote: I am told, by my son, that the best replacement for MPW in OS neXt is really emacs but it requires that I learn smalltalk or something similar and, though I have read the book, I just ain't there. X11 isn't that easy to use either with my four monitors. I think there are a few mismatches in that paragraph. I think MPW is most analogous to the shell itself, not to emacs. I'm a happy longtime power-user of emacs, though I've never taught myself Lisp (which is what you meant to say, not Smalltalk). I just use emacs for editing the text, and when I want to run commands I hit control-z and run a perl one-liner, or a 'wc' command, or whatever. Then, since I have bindkey ^Z run-fg-editor in my .login file, I just hit control-z again to drop me back into my editor. I almost never use emacs' shell integration, or write lisp functions, because I find the parent shell a more powerful tool. And this way I get the environment benefits you mentioned too. I'm not sure why X11 got mentioned there either, since you can use emacs the shell without X11 (it's probably been months since I used X11 under OS X). When I'm working with text that's heavily structured, like code or delimited data files, I usually plunge into the shell emacs. For other stuff I usually fire up BBEdit. Getting comfortable with both is really handy. =) -Ken
Re: BBEdit 8.0
Multi-file regular expression find replace functionality, with nameable saveable expressions That's the killer-app feature for me. I could actually say that I think it's BBEdit that gave me my first glimpse of the power of Perl. I use BBEdit literally every day for both HTML and Perl. It's got a nice plug-in architecture for compiled things like BBTidy, HTML tidying specially compiled for BBEdit, http://www.denison.edu/websrv/tutorials/tools/bbTidy.html, but I do Perl tidying via it's unix script architecture, whereby you can just add PerlTidy to a certain folder and then access that script from a menu. P.S. The science fiction author Cory Doctorow wrote on a blog the other day that he's written all his *novels* in BBEdit, which seems rather strange to me, but what the hell, it's another note in its favour.
BBEdit 8.0
Those BBEdit guys went and implemented another of my wish list feature requests! Remember the one about a button that allowed you to view output from a perl script in a browser? It's apparently in 8.0, as well as some other pretty cool new features. They also mention integration with Affrus. I tried out a demo a while back but haven't kept up on it. Anyone here using Affrus on a regular basis? Bill Stephenson
Re: [OT] Old BBEdit question
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, wren thornton wrote: --- Thilo Planz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another more light-weight (and very Mac OS X-like) alternative could be the award-winning SubEthaEdit. It is not so feature-rich, but it does CSS-syntax-high-lighting. I'll have to look into that :) The cool thing about SubEthaEdit (nee Hydra) is the Rendezvous-enabled collaborative editing features. The editor isn't [yet?] as full-featured as say BBEdit, Vim, or Emacs, but that feature alone is interesting enough to make SubEthaEdit interesting. This feature seems very good for any kind of XP peer programming -- which I'm sure is why it's there in the first place -- but you can also use it for spontaneous editing synchronization of a file (like, say, a config file) across multiple machines. Useful trick, sometimes. I'm curious if the Barebones folks are thinking of borrowing that feature for a future version of BBEdit... :) -- Chris Devers
Re: [OT] Old BBEdit question
--- Jim Correia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4.5.3 doesn't support language plug-ins (that capability was added later.) Even so, I am unaware of third party CSS modules. Okay, thanks. I could just set it to plain-text, shouldn't be too annoying. --- Jim Correia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you own a copy of 4.5.3 you are eligible for upgrade pricing which is substantially cheaper than retail. (I don't know if this fits into your budget or not.) I'll have to look into that again, I forget how much the upgrade costed. --- Thilo Planz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know everyone has his favorite editor and that the matter is an almost religious one, but if you are looking for a free and powerful text editor to replace your proven, old BBEdit 4.5.3, you should have a look at JEdit (http://jedit.org). It rocks. I've looked at jedit before and recall not being particularly enthused by it. I've switched my favourite browser in the past, so that's not all there is to it, but I am a big fan of BBEdit. Recently I've come to see the merits of TextEdit (OSX's SimpleText), but I wonder how much of that is just because it's a native X program rather than running under Classic... --- Thilo Planz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another more light-weight (and very Mac OS X-like) alternative could be the award-winning SubEthaEdit. It is not so feature-rich, but it does CSS-syntax-high-lighting. I'll have to look into that :) ~wren __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
[OT] Old BBEdit question
Okay, so I've been messing around with my website lately and in the transition to it being database driven, part of it is going over to CSS. I have an old version of BBEdit (4.5.3 on macclassic) and I was wondering if someone has made a CSS language to get the colors to highlight correctly. I'd get a newer version of the program if it didn't cost so darn much (and if I weren't such a poor college student), so that isn't really an option. ~wren __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
Re: BBEdit-Perl confusion
On Thursday, Oct 16, 2003, at 06:56 US/Pacific, Vic Norton wrote: I have recently installed Perl 5.8.0 on my iMac via PortsManager from DarwinPorts http://www.opendarwin.org/projects/darwinports/. Perl 5.8.0 resides in the /opt/local/bin directory, and this directory is at the beginning of $PATH. Everything works well except that BBEdit seems rather confused. Any suggestions as to how to rectify this confusion would be appreciated. p0: have you set up a $HOME/.MaxOSX/environment.plist that would contain say: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? !DOCTYPE plist SYSTEM file://localhost/System/Library/DTDs/PropertyList.dtd plist version=0.9 dict keyPATH/key string /opt/local/bin:/home/drieux/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/ local/sbin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/X11R6/bin/string keyMANPATH/key string/home/drieux/man:/usr/local/share/man:/usr/share/man/string /dict /plist This way the Aqua GUI would be launched knowing about your alternative directory structure. bbedit is probably picking up a 'default' path from the GUI when you launch it, hence would most likely be running the 'default' perl from /usr/bin/perl. p1: it is interesting that the 'run in terminal' option would be invoking an alternative version of perl... DUH! hold on, IF bbedit started with what it thought was the definition, then it would have invoked perl on the file perl your_file_here hence it would have been the /usr/bin/perl (???) version vice the 'first in the path found' version of perl. ciao drieux ---
Re: BBEdit-Perl confusion
On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 02:20 am, Doug McNutt wrote:
At 16:12 -0700 10/16/03, Ingles, Juan W. wrote:
I wonder: Is this because
/opt/local/bin/perl points to the perl 5.6 binary
or
5.6 binary path is hard coded in BBEdit
I don't have any /opt/local/bin/. None was created by the CPAN perl
5.8 install in July 2002
which perl
on the terminal will tell you what binary you are launching
It just says /usr/bin/perl and says nothing about what it links to.
FWIW (as the maintanier of the dports perl port) We deliberately do not
replace the system (/usr/bin/perl) binary. If you want to use perl
5.8.x via darwinports as your 'system' perl you should remove
/usr/bin/perl and replace it with a symlink to ${prefix}/bin/perl
(usually /opt/local/bin/perl).
I've been meaning to add a 'switch_perl' shell script similar to the
one used in freebsd to semi-automate this for those that want it.
Also, I've just updated the perl port to 5.8.1, with the previously
discussed fix for the DBD::mysql issues.
hth
Michael
--
Michael Maibaum
internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]|http://mike.maibaum.org
voice: [m] 07958 604025|
--
Michael Maibaum
internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]|http://mike.maibaum.org
voice: [m] 07958 604025|
BBEdit-Perl confusion
I have recently installed Perl 5.8.0 on my iMac via PortsManager from
DarwinPorts http://www.opendarwin.org/projects/darwinports/. Perl 5.8.0
resides in the /opt/local/bin directory, and this directory is at the
beginning of $PATH. Everything works well except that BBEdit seems rather
confused. Any suggestions as to how to rectify this confusion would be
appreciated.
Here is an example of BBEdit's confusion.
In Terminal the command
% perl -e 'for (@INC) { print $_\n }'
produces
/opt/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0/darwin
/opt/local/lib/perl5/5.8.0
/opt/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0/darwin
/opt/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.0
/opt/local/lib/perl5/site_perl
.
When Run from BBEdit the script
#!/opt/local/bin/perl -w
for (@INC) { print $_\n }
produces exactly the same output in the Unix Script Output window.
However, when this script is Run in Terminal from BBEdit, the output
is
/Users/vicnorton/Perl/MyPerl/Misc/tests-work
/System/Library/Perl/darwin
/System/Library/Perl
/Library/Perl/darwin
/Library/Perl
/Library/Perl
/Network/Library/Perl/darwin
/Network/Library/Perl
/Network/Library/Perl
.
Something seems to be wrong here.
Any suggestions as to what is going on here and how to rectify it
would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Vic
--
*---* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Victor Thane Norton, Jr.
| Mathematician and Motorcyclist
| phone: 419-353-3399
*---* http://vic.norton.name
Re: BBEdit-Perl confusion
At 09:56 -0400 10/16/03, Vic Norton wrote: I have recently installed Perl 5.8.0 on my iMac via PortsManager from DarwinPorts http://www.opendarwin.org/projects/darwinports/. Perl 5.8.0 resides in the /opt/local/bin directory, and this directory is at the beginning of $PATH. Everything works well except that BBEdit seems rather confused. BBEdit is almost surely executing perl 5.6 and it's probably because of a hard coded path. I had 5.8 running, with some difficulty, over a year ago from the CPAN distribution and it is in /opt/. But I had to remove 5.6 from the other directories. It was an interesting experience while I learned about gzip and tar to preserve my options. You'll be OK after that so long as the link in /usr/bin/perl points to the new version. Some have complained about Apple's installer requiring the old perl 5.6 but it has never bitten me. -- -- There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't --
Re: BBEdit-Perl confusion
I guess there is no fix right now. But actually the bug is somewhat convenient. Now a BBEdit script starting with #!/opt/local/bin/perl -w # Perl 5.8 uses Perl 5.8.0 with its @INC list if Run from BBEdit and uses Perl 5.6.0 with a different @INC list if Run in Terminal. It's not all bad---though it is a bit confusing. Regards, Vic At 12:03 PM -0400 10/16/03, Bare Bones Software Technical Support wrote: There is a bug in BBEdit where run in terminal hard codes the path to perl as /usr/bin/perl instead of taking the other usual steps to choose which interpreter to run. I have a bug logged and this will be corrected for the next release. At 9:56 AM -0400 10/16/03, Vic Norton wrote: I have recently installed Perl 5.8.0 on my iMac via PortsManager from DarwinPorts http://www.opendarwin.org/projects/darwinports/. Perl 5.8.0 resides in the /opt/local/bin directory, and this directory is at the beginning of $PATH. Everything works well except that BBEdit seems rather confused. Any suggestions as to how to rectify this confusion would be appreciated.
RE: BBEdit-Perl confusion
I wonder: Is this because /opt/local/bin/perl points to the perl 5.6 binary or 5.6 binary path is hard coded in BBEdit which perl on the terminal will tell you what binary you are launching ( not currently at my machine to check ) juan -Original Message- From: Vic Norton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BBEdit-Perl confusion I guess there is no fix right now. But actually the bug is somewhat convenient. Now a BBEdit script starting with #!/opt/local/bin/perl -w # Perl 5.8 uses Perl 5.8.0 with its @INC list if Run from BBEdit and uses Perl 5.6.0 with a different @INC list if Run in Terminal. It's not all bad---though it is a bit confusing. Regards, Vic At 12:03 PM -0400 10/16/03, Bare Bones Software Technical Support wrote: There is a bug in BBEdit where run in terminal hard codes the path to perl as /usr/bin/perl instead of taking the other usual steps to choose which interpreter to run. I have a bug logged and this will be corrected for the next release. At 9:56 AM -0400 10/16/03, Vic Norton wrote: I have recently installed Perl 5.8.0 on my iMac via PortsManager from DarwinPorts http://www.opendarwin.org/projects/darwinports/. Perl 5.8.0 resides in the /opt/local/bin directory, and this directory is at the beginning of $PATH. Everything works well except that BBEdit seems rather confused. Any suggestions as to how to rectify this confusion would be appreciated.
Re: BBEdit-Perl confusion
On 10/16/03 5:12 PM, Ingles, Juan W. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder: Is this because /opt/local/bin/perl points to the perl 5.6 binary or 5.6 binary path is hard coded in BBEdit Would this be in a plist file for BBedit? C. which perl on the terminal will tell you what binary you are launching ( not currently at my machine to check ) juan -Original Message- From: Vic Norton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BBEdit-Perl confusion I guess there is no fix right now. But actually the bug is somewhat convenient. Now a BBEdit script starting with #!/opt/local/bin/perl -w # Perl 5.8 uses Perl 5.8.0 with its @INC list if Run from BBEdit and uses Perl 5.6.0 with a different @INC list if Run in Terminal. It's not all bad---though it is a bit confusing. Regards, Vic At 12:03 PM -0400 10/16/03, Bare Bones Software Technical Support wrote: There is a bug in BBEdit where run in terminal hard codes the path to perl as /usr/bin/perl instead of taking the other usual steps to choose which interpreter to run. I have a bug logged and this will be corrected for the next release. At 9:56 AM -0400 10/16/03, Vic Norton wrote: I have recently installed Perl 5.8.0 on my iMac via PortsManager from DarwinPorts http://www.opendarwin.org/projects/darwinports/. Perl 5.8.0 resides in the /opt/local/bin directory, and this directory is at the beginning of $PATH. Everything works well except that BBEdit seems rather confused. Any suggestions as to how to rectify this confusion would be appreciated.
Re: BBEdit-Perl confusion
On 10/16/03 5:12 PM, Ingles, Juan W. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder: Is this because /opt/local/bin/perl points to the perl 5.6 binary or 5.6 binary path is hard coded in BBEdit which perl on the terminal will tell you what binary you are launching ( not currently at my machine to check ) juan -Original Message- From: Vic Norton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BBEdit-Perl confusion I guess there is no fix right now. But actually the bug is somewhat convenient. Now a BBEdit script starting with #!/opt/local/bin/perl -w # Perl 5.8 uses Perl 5.8.0 with its @INC list if Run from BBEdit and uses Perl 5.6.0 with a different @INC list if Run in Terminal. It's not all bad---though it is a bit confusing. Regards, Vic At 12:03 PM -0400 10/16/03, Bare Bones Software Technical Support wrote: There is a bug in BBEdit where run in terminal hard codes the path to perl as /usr/bin/perl instead of taking the other usual steps to choose which interpreter to run. I have a bug logged and this will be corrected for the next release. At 9:56 AM -0400 10/16/03, Vic Norton wrote: I have recently installed Perl 5.8.0 on my iMac via PortsManager from DarwinPorts http://www.opendarwin.org/projects/darwinports/. Perl 5.8.0 resides in the /opt/local/bin directory, and this directory is at the beginning of $PATH. Everything works well except that BBEdit seems rather confused. Any suggestions as to how to rectify this confusion would be appreciated. I have now also found that running this command in Bbedit: print `which perl`; Produces the following error: MANPATH: Undefined variable. That is a very strange error to be produced by that command... I thought maybe it was a problem using the `` syntax to execute via the shell so I tried system() syntax, same results... I then thought maybe it was that bbedit choked on any system command but, print `echo test`; Worked fine... Very strange must have something to do with a hard coded environment in perl. C.
RE: BBEdit-Perl confusion
At 16:12 -0700 10/16/03, Ingles, Juan W. wrote: I wonder: Is this because /opt/local/bin/perl points to the perl 5.6 binary or 5.6 binary path is hard coded in BBEdit I don't have any /opt/local/bin/. None was created by the CPAN perl 5.8 install in July 2002 which perl on the terminal will tell you what binary you are launching It just says /usr/bin/perl and says nothing about what it links to. When I installed 5.8 I had to recreate the link for /usr/bin/perl manually and that fixed up almost everything but BBEdit 6.x was in vogue at the time and worksheets were brand new. -- -- There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't --
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
At 5:57 PM +1100 12/3/02, Ken Williams wrote: On Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 05:07 PM, Rob Barris wrote: Could someone use Inline.pm to talk to the Carbon API and the desktop database? Then you could look up any app by its creator code (I would wager). Have a look at Mac::MoreFiles (part of Mac::Carbon), which does exactly this. -Ken Or use an alternate form of the open command in Applescript and let the Finder look the app up by it's creator code for you. Or use the `open` command directly, instead of through AppleScript. Or TIMTOWTDI. -Jeff Lowrey
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
Bruce A. Burdick, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/1/02 at 11:28p: I had to change 'BBEdit' to 'BBEdit 6.5' to allow this to work in my environment. [...] Naturally, this patch'll probably break other systems. A general solution might try one and then the other. You could also just change the name of your BBEdit application from BBEdit 6.5 to BBEdit. There's nothing magic about the app's file name, so this shouldn't break anything. It won't break *compiled* applescripts, since they store a reference to application, not the name of the app. As a general solution for not-yet-compiled applescripts, such as those embedded in Perl scripts, I'm not sure what to suggest, other than not including version info in application file names. :^) -- John Gruber | Daring Fireball: Mac Punditry and Curmudgeonry [EMAIL PROTECTED] |http://daringfireball.net
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 10:01 PM, John Gruber wrote: Bruce A. Burdick, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/1/02 at 11:28p: I had to change 'BBEdit' to 'BBEdit 6.5' to allow this to work in my environment. [...] Naturally, this patch'll probably break other systems. A general solution might try one and then the other. You could also just change the name of your BBEdit application from BBEdit 6.5 to BBEdit. There's nothing magic about the app's file name, so this shouldn't break anything. It won't break *compiled* applescripts, since they store a reference to application, not the name of the app. As a general solution for not-yet-compiled applescripts, such as those embedded in Perl scripts, I'm not sure what to suggest, other than not including version info in application file names. :^) Could someone use Inline.pm to talk to the Carbon API and the desktop database? Then you could look up any app by its creator code (I would wager). Rob
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
On Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 05:07 PM, Rob Barris wrote: Could someone use Inline.pm to talk to the Carbon API and the desktop database? Then you could look up any app by its creator code (I would wager). Have a look at Mac::MoreFiles (part of Mac::Carbon), which does exactly this. -Ken
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
On Thursday, November 28, 2002, at 01:23 AM, Pete Prodoehl wrote: This may (or may not) work for you, I wrote a script to do a diff with two files via the command line, and if they really are different, it opens them both in BBEdit. It's here: http://zymm.com/raster/code/src/diffem_pl.txt I've really been smitten with the FileMerge application (at /Developer/Applications/FileMerge), but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be scriptable so this kind of wrapper would be tougher to write. -Ken
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 03:39 pm, Peder Axensten wrote: I want to get started with CVS and BBEdit, how to I run a server? There's nothing in the BBEdit manual... Any good sources of info would be appreciated! If you're doing local development you might find http://developer.apple.com/internet/macosx/cvsoverview.html Of use. Adrian
OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
for Perl development on OS X, of course :-) CVS client: I really like Mac CVS Pro, and have been using it under OS 9 and OS X as my CVS client. Now, as I'm moving more exclusively to OS X with it's command-line cvs, and with the release of BBEdit 7 with it's cvs integration, I'd really like to be able to use any of the 3 (Mac CVS Pro, command-line cvs, BBEdit cvs) on the same checked out source tree. The problem I found is that Mac CVS Pro (2.7d3) uses CR line endings in files inside its CVS directories (Entries, Repository, Root, etc) which doesn't work with the command-line cvs (and therefore BBEdit). So ... to the question ... does anyone here have a build of MacCVS Pro that fixes this issue? Does anyone know if it's still being developed/maintained? I've tried, so far unsuccessfully, to contact the authors. http://www.maccvs.org/ http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/maccvspro/ Or maybe, someone has a different favorite GUI CVS client they'd like to recommend? BBEdit diff: I want a bbdiff command-line program. Something that will let me type: bbdiff file1 file2 or bbdiff dir1 dir2 to initiate a file comparison or multi-file comparison in BBEdit. Ideally, Bare Bones would include something like this along side the bbedit command-line tool, but I was wondering if anyone has created (or could easily create) such a tool via a Perl script making some AppleScript calls or something? -- Ray Zimmerman / e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 428-B Phillips Hall Sr Research / phone: (607) 255-9645 / Cornell University Associate / FAX: (815) 377-3932 / Ithaca, NY 14853
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
This may (or may not) work for you, I wrote a script to do a diff with two files via the command line, and if they really are different, it opens them both in BBEdit. It's here: http://zymm.com/raster/code/src/diffem_pl.txt Pete Ray Zimmerman wrote: for Perl development on OS X, of course :-) [snip] BBEdit diff: I want a bbdiff command-line program. Something that will let me type: bbdiff file1 file2 or bbdiff dir1 dir2 to initiate a file comparison or multi-file comparison in BBEdit. Ideally, Bare Bones would include something like this along side the bbedit command-line tool, but I was wondering if anyone has created (or could easily create) such a tool via a Perl script making some AppleScript calls or something?
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
I want to get started with CVS and BBEdit, how to I run a server? There's nothing in the BBEdit manual... Any good sources of info would be appreciated! /Peder
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 10:39 AM, Peder Axensten wrote: I want to get started with CVS and BBEdit, how to I run a server? There's nothing in the BBEdit manual... Any good sources of info would be appreciated! Setting up a server is beyond the scope of the BBEdit manual I'm afraid. We put up some FAQs yesterday. http://www.barebones.com/cgi-bin/faq/ faqgroup.pl?BBEdit_Features#Features_-_1 To set up a server that you can do CVS over ssh with is relatively easy. First, turn on the sshd daemon on the machine. Setup a CVS repository. (cvs init - see cvs manual - FWIW the little O'Reilly pocket reference for about $10 is quite helpful.). Import a project, then check out into a sandbox and you are off to the races. (This all assumes a propert CVS_RSH = ssh and CVSROOT = :ext:user@host:/path/to/repository) Setting up a pserver is a bit more involved because you've got to get xinetd or inetd listening properly, but if you can use ssh you probably don't want to use pserver since everything is cleartext. Jim -- Jim Correia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
At 9:08 AM -0500 11/27/02, Jim Correia wrote (regarding my comments on MacCVS Pro): I think the problem is more than line feeds. The repository file gets written out as (this may be wrong since it is from memory) server:blahblahblah for an ssh type repository when the command line cvs expects :ext:blahblahblah. Ah ... I was using pserver, which seemed to work OK as soon as I changed the CRs to LFs. -- Ray Zimmerman / e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 428-B Phillips Hall Sr Research / phone: (607) 255-9645 / Cornell University Associate / FAX: (815) 377-3932 / Ithaca, NY 14853
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
At 9:08 AM -0500 11/27/02, Jim Correia wrote: On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 08:42 AM, Ray Zimmerman wrote: BBEdit diff: I want a bbdiff command-line program. Something that will let me type: bbdiff file1 file2 or bbdiff dir1 dir2 to initiate a file comparison or multi-file comparison in BBEdit. Ideally, Bare Bones would include something like this along side the bbedit command-line tool, but I was wondering if anyone has created (or could easily create) such a tool via a Perl script making some AppleScript calls or something? I'm sure somebody has at some point. I just wrote one here. It isn't a full fledged tool in that it doesn't give you usage and doesn't have an error checking for arguments and such, but if you always supply both arguments and they are valid, it should do the job. snip Share and enjoy. Sweet ... thanks. Isn't OS X great! -- Ray Zimmerman / e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 428-B Phillips Hall Sr Research / phone: (607) 255-9645 / Cornell University Associate / FAX: (815) 377-3932 / Ithaca, NY 14853
Re: OT: CVS clients and BBEdit diff tool ...
BBEdit diff:
I want a bbdiff command-line program. Something that will let me type:
bbdiff file1 file2
or
bbdiff dir1 dir2
to initiate a file comparison or multi-file comparison in BBEdit.
Ideally, Bare Bones would include something like this along side the
bbedit command-line tool, but I was wondering if anyone has created
(or could easily create) such a tool via a Perl script making some
AppleScript calls or something?
bbedit-compare.pl:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use File::Spec::Unix;
my $file1 = shift or Usage();
my $file2 = shift or Usage();
compare_in_bbedit( $file1, $file2 );
sub Usage {
print STDERR Usage: bbedit-compare.pl file1 file2\n;
exit( 1 );
}
sub compare_in_bbedit {
my( $file1, $file2 ) = @_;
$file1 = File::Spec::Unix-rel2abs( $file1 );
$file2 = File::Spec::Unix-rel2abs( $file2 );
do_osa_script( EOM );
tell app BBEdit
compare POSIX file $file1 against POSIX file $file2
activate
end tell
EOM
}
sub do_osa_script {
my( $script ) = @_;
my $fh;
open( $fh, | /usr/bin/osascript /dev/null ) or die cant open
osascript $!;
print $fh $script;
close( $fh );
}
Enjoy,
Peter.
--
http://www.interarchy.com/ http://download.interarchy.com/
Re: BBEdit 7.0 - Not Impressed
jEdit anyone? http://jedit.org/ Open-source, customizable, hackable, extendable, good community, responsive developers, lots of plugins, multi-platform, etc... True, it's slower than BBEdit (since it's written in Java) but it's also more open, if that's important to you. Pete _brian_d_foy wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark S Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is BARELY an update. BBEdit is going the way of Interarchy.=20 They've run out of features, or in most causes reached a point where=20 they refuse to program anything difficult, so we're left with features=20= they have seem rather ossified. i had a few exchanges with their techies about syntax coloring. some of my code doesn't color correctly, and they don't color everything i need. i could fix things if i wanted to buy CodeWarrior and go through all of that pain, but i think they should have a better mechanism for that. why should i have to compile somthing for every language? i should be able to write a language description file, like vim has perhaps, and that is that. a few other exchanges on things like that lead me to beleive their locked into their code base now. i love the program, and i buy every version, but i do miss some of the aspects of open source development. i still wouldn't give it up because i like it much better than any other editor that has ever existed. :) i'll have to see about this CVS tool thing. i'm dubious.
Re: BBEdit 7.0 - Not Impressed
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:09:43 -0600 Pete Prodoehl wrote: jEdit anyone? http://jedit.org/ Open-source, customizable, hackable, extendable, good community, responsive developers, lots of plugins, multi-platform, etc... True, it's slower than BBEdit (since it's written in Java) but it's also more open, if that's important to you. I plan to upgrade BBEdit tonight or tomorrow as soon as I hunt down the license keys. However, I've been dealing with gvim on a PC (and occasionally on my Mac) on a fairly regular basis and it offers a language mode for IDL, something I've been asking the folks at Research Systems and BareBones to consider for quite a while. It's not the only reason to choose an editor, but it does make my life a little easier, and I'm more than comfortable with vi and its relatives. I'll be working at Research Systems in a couple weeks - maybe I can get something started along those lines one day. Mike Schienle Interactive Visuals, Inc. http://www.ivsoftware.com - This message sent using EMUmail -- http://www.emumail.com - Jumping through hoops to get E-mail on the road? You've got two choices: Join the circus, or use MollyMail. Molly Mail -- http://www.mollymail.com
Re: BBEdit 7.0
On 11/14/02 12:26 AM, Peter N Lewis wrote: Yeah, I considered that, but I figured it'd be mentioned somewhere in the BBEdit docs if I had to go to that length. Anyway, BBEdit appears to try to contact the correct server, which leads me to believe it is reading my config (or at least some of it). Or is the hostname in the CVS/ directories somewhere? Anyway, I'll try futzing with environment.plist tomorrow... Yes, once you setup a CVS directory, it no longer needs the CVS ROOT (it is in ./CVS/Root ./CVS/Repository. You still need the CVS RSH setting though, at least if you want it to go through ssh. Yup, that makes sense, and that was it. Works fine now, thanks :) -John
Re: BBEdit 7.0 - Not Impressed
At 11:29 PM -0500 11/13/02, Chris Nandor wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (_brian_d_foy) wrote: i'll have to see about this CVS tool thing. i'm dubious. It really rocks. It's fairly simple, but it works great. I really only want to do a few things with CVS in my text editor: commit and diff. Local CVS-only, or remote via ssh (with passcode prompting)? I keep upgrading to new BBEdit versions, and it is useful enough on occasion to make it worth while, but it's not my primary editor. It requires far too much use of the mouse (emacs sequences probably help, but I gave up on emacs when my pinky literally refused to move one morning--it's no coincidence that Stallman has to dictate his edits to somebody). Also most of my editing is of Embperl, and there's no way in BBEdit to merge syntax modes. I'd dearly love them to make the syntax editing extensible with something like Perl itself. In the meantime, I spend most of my time in vim, where I don't need either the mouse *or* the control keys. -- Kee Hinckley - Somewhere.Com, LLC http://consulting.somewhere.com/ I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
Re: BBEdit 7.0 - Not Impressed
In article p0530090cb9f97023425e@[192.168.1.104], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kee Hinckley) wrote: At 11:29 PM -0500 11/13/02, Chris Nandor wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (_brian_d_foy) wrote: i'll have to see about this CVS tool thing. i'm dubious. It really rocks. It's fairly simple, but it works great. I really only want to do a few things with CVS in my text editor: commit and diff. Local CVS-only, or remote via ssh (with passcode prompting)? It just uses the command line cvs tool, I think. I use it with remote CVS. Mine doesn't prompt for the password, since I have ssh-agent set up, but yeah. -- Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
BBEdit 7.0
Did you see that rectangular text selections made it into BBEdit 7.0 :) Not only was Jim listening to us, he (they?) must have worked pretty hard to get this feature ready in time for the 7.0 release. Looks like some other cool features are in there too. I'm getting mine now! -- Bill Stephenson
Re: BBEdit 7.0
And CVS support too! Excellent! Where's my credit card... Adrian On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 04:29 pm, Bill Stephenson wrote: Did you see that rectangular text selections made it into BBEdit 7.0 :) Not only was Jim listening to us, he (they?) must have worked pretty hard to get this feature ready in time for the 7.0 release. Looks like some other cool features are in there too. I'm getting mine now!
Re: BBEdit 7.0
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adrian Howard) wrote: And CVS support too! Excellent! The CVS support is very cool, too. -- Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
Re: BBEdit 7.0
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) wrote: On 11/13/02 11:46 AM, Adrian Howard wrote: And CVS support too! Excellent! Hrm, not so excellent for me so far...it just hangs with the connecting dialog box and then fails. CVS works fine from the command line. Maybe BBEdit isn't picking up my CVS environment variables? I thought there'd be someplace to set them in the BBEdit prefs, but I haven't found it yet... The only problem I had like that was when I tried to use CVS with a checkout that had Mac newlines. Oopsie. :) -- Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
Re: BBEdit 7.0 - Not Impressed
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark S Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is BARELY an update. BBEdit is going the way of Interarchy.=20 They've run out of features, or in most causes reached a point where=20 they refuse to program anything difficult, so we're left with features=20= they have seem rather ossified. i had a few exchanges with their techies about syntax coloring. some of my code doesn't color correctly, and they don't color everything i need. i could fix things if i wanted to buy CodeWarrior and go through all of that pain, but i think they should have a better mechanism for that. why should i have to compile somthing for every language? i should be able to write a language description file, like vim has perhaps, and that is that. a few other exchanges on things like that lead me to beleive their locked into their code base now. i love the program, and i buy every version, but i do miss some of the aspects of open source development. i still wouldn't give it up because i like it much better than any other editor that has ever existed. :) i'll have to see about this CVS tool thing. i'm dubious.
Re: BBEdit 7.0
At 14:18 -0500 13/11/02, John Siracusa wrote: On 11/13/02 11:46 AM, Adrian Howard wrote: And CVS support too! Excellent! Hrm, not so excellent for me so far...it just hangs with the connecting dialog box and then fails. CVS works fine from the command line. Maybe BBEdit isn't picking up my CVS environment variables? I thought there'd be someplace to set them in the BBEdit prefs, but I haven't found it yet... Where are your environment variables configured? For BBEdit to have them, they probably need to be in: ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist Which needs to be something like: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? !DOCTYPE plist SYSTEM file://localhost/System/Library/DTDs/PropertyList.dtd plist version=0.9 dict keyCVSROOT/key stringyourusernameyourhost:/cvs/string keyCVS_RSH/key stringssh/string keyDISPLAY/key stringlocalhost/string keyLC_ALL/key stringC/string keyPERL5LIB/key string/Library/Perl:/Users/yourusername/perl/string /dict /plist Changes take effect at login, so you'll need to logout and log back in. From what I've seen, there are three places you can put environment variables: ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist - used by everything you launch directly. ~/.cshrc or ~/.tcshrc - used by any tcsh shell you launch (including remotely accessed ones). Terminal launched ones probably pick up the environment.plist variables, but if you ssh into your Mac from another Mac, then probably not. setenv PERL5LIB /Library/Perl:/Users/yourusername/perl setenv CVSROOT yourusernameyourhost:/cvs setenv CVS_RSH ssh setenv LC_ALL C crontab -e file - you can also set envrionment variables in your crontab which will get used when executing cron actions. PERL5LIB=/Library/Perl:/Users/yourusername/perl LC_ALL=C 12 1 * * * perl dosomething.pl Enjoy, Peter. -- http://www.interarchy.com/ http://download.interarchy.com/
Re: BBEdit 7.0
On 11/13/02 9:43 PM, Peter N Lewis wrote: At 14:18 -0500 13/11/02, John Siracusa wrote: On 11/13/02 11:46 AM, Adrian Howard wrote: And CVS support too! Excellent! Hrm, not so excellent for me so far...it just hangs with the connecting dialog box and then fails. CVS works fine from the command line. Maybe BBEdit isn't picking up my CVS environment variables? I thought there'd be someplace to set them in the BBEdit prefs, but I haven't found it yet... Where are your environment variables configured? For BBEdit to have them, they probably need to be in: ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist Yeah, I considered that, but I figured it'd be mentioned somewhere in the BBEdit docs if I had to go to that length. Anyway, BBEdit appears to try to contact the correct server, which leads me to believe it is reading my config (or at least some of it). Or is the hostname in the CVS/ directories somewhere? Anyway, I'll try futzing with environment.plist tomorrow... (Disclosure triangles? Possibly Anarchie 4.0 --Peter N Lewis, 12/99) (glad to see they finally made it ;) -John
Re: BBEdit 7.0 - Not Impressed
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (_brian_d_foy) wrote: i'll have to see about this CVS tool thing. i'm dubious. It really rocks. It's fairly simple, but it works great. I really only want to do a few things with CVS in my text editor: commit and diff. And both are now a simple key-command away; commit brings up a message window to type in, and diff brings up a list of revisions to diff against (and, of course, takes you to the great BBEdit differences windows to view the diff). I use it for a few other little things, like revision history and checking the status, but the ability to do commit and diff is huge for me. -- Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
Re: BBEdit 7.0
In article p05300806b9f8bc9369b2@[203.8.112.3], Peter N Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 14:18 -0500 13/11/02, John Siracusa wrote: On 11/13/02 11:46 AM, Adrian Howard wrote: And CVS support too! Excellent! Hrm, not so excellent for me so far...it just hangs with the connecting dialog box and then fails. CVS works fine from the command line. Maybe BBEdit isn't picking up my CVS environment variables? I thought there'd be someplace to set them in the BBEdit prefs, but I haven't found it yet... Where are your environment variables configured? For BBEdit to have them, they probably need to be in: ~/.MacOSX/environment.plist indeed. i talked about this recently on use.perl http://use.perl.org/~brian_d_foy/journal/8915
Re: BBEdit 7.0
Yeah, I considered that, but I figured it'd be mentioned somewhere in the BBEdit docs if I had to go to that length. Anyway, BBEdit appears to try to contact the correct server, which leads me to believe it is reading my config (or at least some of it). Or is the hostname in the CVS/ directories somewhere? Anyway, I'll try futzing with environment.plist tomorrow... Yes, once you setup a CVS directory, it no longer needs the CVS ROOT (it is in ./CVS/Root ./CVS/Repository. You still need the CVS RSH setting though, at least if you want it to go through ssh. (Disclosure triangles? Possibly Anarchie 4.0 --Peter N Lewis, 12/99) (glad to see they finally made it ;) Yeah, must be one of those features we've run out of, or maybe something not too difficult we could implement ;-) Peter. -- http://www.interarchy.com/ http://download.interarchy.com/
Re: Problem opening files in BBEdit
He's got some J to E dictionary stuff Yes! that's the odd, incredibly obscure reference I was going for, he also wrote the regex book for Oreilly, which is choke full of perl examples, although I don't think he uses a mac :( Good book though, I really want a motorcycle now. -- justin. s k a z a t - http://skazat.com 'I am a banana' -the banana
Problem opening files in BBEdit
Has anyone experienced this, Perl files saved in BBEdit in Unix and then closed and reopened, will be opened as a Macintosh format? The problem seems to be that BBEdit isn't changing \n to \r in the editing window, or aren't understanding that the file is using Unix newlines and thinks it's a Mac formatted file. I'm using 10.1. The files I'm working on have a PERL File Kind and a BBEdit icon. justin. http://skazat.com
Re: Problem opening files in BBEdit
Well it seems a little obscure. He's got some J to E dictionary stuff I am still not pattingback(me) But it reminded me to try grep replace in 10.1 and it now works correctly for me though I am not sure if this was a universal problem. find was working but replace was returning a pointer error. (in 10.0x) Only for grep searches. On Sunday, September 30, 2001, at 02:38 PM, Justin Simoni wrote: Jeffrey Friedl --- reply directly to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] iMedia, Ltd. Tokyo ---
BBEdit Floating Function Palette
hey everyone, has anyone seen a Palette for BBEdit that shows all functions in an open Perl Script? I think that would be killer for some of my monster scripts. I know you can do it with dropdown button on the toolbar, but I like the idea of always haveing the list accessable and move back and forth with a click. This may not be possible, since it looks like most of the floating palettes are application specific, instead of document specific. I don't do much, well, ANY work in any kind of IDE, so I don't know what other goodies can be made to make my life easier, I do like the simplicity of BBEdit. Sorry if this q is a bit BBEdit specific, 99% of the time I have BBEdit open, it's with a Perl Script in one of the windows, cheers, justin. s k a z a t - http://skazat.com
Re: BBEdit Floating Function Palette
You know, that would be a great addition! Where do I petition for (someone else!) to develop it? =) --Ian hey everyone, has anyone seen a Palette for BBEdit that shows all functions in an open Perl Script? I think that would be killer for some of my monster scripts. I know you can do it with dropdown button on the toolbar, but I like the idea of always haveing the list accessable and move back and forth with a click. This may not be possible, since it looks like most of the floating palettes are application specific, instead of document specific. I don't do much, well, ANY work in any kind of IDE, so I don't know what other goodies can be made to make my life easier, I do like the simplicity of BBEdit. Sorry if this q is a bit BBEdit specific, 99% of the time I have BBEdit open, it's with a Perl Script in one of the windows, cheers, justin. s k a z a t - http://skazat.com -- --- Ian Cabell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - There Is More Than One Right Way PGP Key: C5A5 560D 2E28 FF1F BA6D C2C7 870C 8ED5 8AF0 79C5
Re: BBEdit Floating Function Palette
BBEdit has it's own SDK for floating palletes and such. You can grab it from the Bare Bones site I'm sure anyone who knows C could bust it out. I was wondering if anyone has created one yet. justin. s k a z a t - http://skazat.com On Thursday, September 20, 2001, at 04:31 PM, Ian Cabell wrote: You know, that would be a great addition! Where do I petition for (someone else!) to develop it? =) --Ian hey everyone, has anyone seen a Palette for BBEdit that shows all functions in an open Perl Script? I think that would be killer for some of my monster scripts. I know you can do it with dropdown button on the toolbar, but I like the idea of always haveing the list accessable and move back and forth with a click. This may not be possible, since it looks like most of the floating palettes are application specific, instead of document specific. I don't do much, well, ANY work in any kind of IDE, so I don't know what other goodies can be made to make my life easier, I do like the simplicity of BBEdit. Sorry if this q is a bit BBEdit specific, 99% of the time I have BBEdit open, it's with a Perl Script in one of the windows, cheers, justin. s k a z a t - http://skazat.com -- --- Ian Cabell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - There Is More Than One Right Way PGP Key: C5A5 560D 2E28 FF1F BA6D C2C7 870C 8ED5 8AF0 79C5 justin. s k a z a t - http://skazat.com
Re: BBEdit Floating Function Palette
You know, that would be a great addition! Where do I petition for (someone else!) to develop it? =) bbedit-talk would be a better place to ask. It's a good list: see http://www.barebones.com/bbswlists.html apparently: This discussion list is intended for any current or prospective users of our world-class HTML and text editor, BBEdit. Topics might include sharing specific uses and tips for HTML document or Web site creation, use of BBEdit as a coding editor, sharing of AppleScripts or grep patterns, asking questions or providing feedback about potential product features, development of plug-ins, etc. best will ps. don't ask for the best bbedit substitute under windows. drives them crazy.
Re: BBEdit Floating Function Palette
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, william ross wrote: ps. don't ask for the best bbedit substitute under windows. drives them crazy. Gvim. Good substitute on Macs, too... ;) runs away/ -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: perl in bbedit - LC_ALL LANG
It's quite possible you're launching a new version of a shell, hence I'd guess to be sure your .cshrc (or-what-shell-have-you) should, mayhap have the environmental set (eg, setenv LANG en_US)... i did that (before i installed perl 5.6.1) setenv LC_ALL C setenv LANG en_US but the problem is still there (only from bbedit) thanks allan
Re: perl in bbedit - LC_ALL LANG
At 2:41 PM -0400 5/21/01, Jim Correia wrote: On 2:37 PM 5/21/01 allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when i had the original macosX-shipped perl i never had this problem so in a way it points to perl itself but then again - there are no complaints when running programs directly from the commandline Perl as shipped with X doesn't have this problem. I don't know how Apple built it or configured it to not have this problem (it did in development versions of the OS but that was fixed before it shipped). Anything you set in .cshrc or the like won't affect BBEdit since it inherits the environment from the Finder and loginwindow. Unless, mayhap, you specifically do a open bbedit from a terminal? Hmmm - now there's a clue. Perhaps the environmentals should be added to whatever startup profile the Finder and/or loginwindow uses!? Bohdan I don't know the answer other than reverting to 5.6 for the time being if you don't really need 5.6.1.
Re: perl in bbedit - LC_ALL LANG
On Monday, May 21, 2001, at 02:52 PM, Jim Cooper wrote: There was a big discussion of this last week, Jim Correia [EMAIL PROTECTED] was on the case Unfortunately I still do not have the answer. Someone who was or is at Apple built and configured perl correctly for the 10.0.0 release. I have saved two terminals to the MacPerl Support folder in BBEdit Support the 6.1.2 docs says this name is supposed to change but it did not to Perl Support The updater doesn't change the name of an existing folder. MacPerl Support is supported for the time being so we don't break people's installations. You can change the name to Perl Support. The MacPerl Support name won't be supported forever. Anyway, when I choose run in terminal, or Debug (which defaults to terminal) the message seems to be picking up the user variables from my own environment.min file (There are samples in /usr/share/init/tcsh/ written by Fred Sanchez) anyway, inside BBEDIT no one has yet pro-offered how BBEDIT is getting it's information... I include this quote from Jim Correia [EMAIL PROTECTED] That comes in the 5.6.0 version which he is running. and in the BBEdit document. However, magically after I saved the terminal snapshot in the Mac Perl folder... the terminal prints out my whole environment set-up. That is because the terminal invokes a shell which runs all of those initialization files. BBEdit invokes perl, and perl inherites BBEdit's environment. We are looking into where these environment variables are set for GUI apps and how you might adjust them, but the documentation is a bit lacking.
Re: BBEdit
At 12:31 -0400 4/23/01, Chris Nandor wrote: Maybe one with not just an awesome GUI, but one that actually works well? And a Unix that Works As I Expect? (Yes, I can change my expectations, but I cannot fix the GUI.) I haven't found the switch to the modified BSD Unix under Mac OS X any more wrenching than my daily multiple switches between BSDi and Linux. All such switches involve slowing down and thinking about what happens on *this* machine. My switches are between SSH terminal windows on the same screen. We don't run X Windows, so I don't have to worry about all the different X window behaviors. Specifically BSDi 4.1 and Red Hat Linux 6.2, since just saying BSDi and Linux doesn't tell all, either. --John -- John Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Port Ludlow, WA, USA
Re: BBEdit
At 15:27 -0700 2001.04.23, John W Baxter wrote: When a rational person can make that recommendation, then one is just accommodating people who elect not to move up or can't afford to by continuing MacPerl. That's a decision for later this year, I think...post 5.6.1-based MacPerl (if Chris and the gang want to keep going that long). At the VERY least, I want to get out a modern MacPerl and set it up so that someone else can more easily carry the mantle, if I do decide to move on. I anticipate a MacPerl 5.6.1, and a MacPerl 5.8.0. I've already built MacPerl for 5.7.1 several times. For the most part, it is just drop in the perl source, be it 5.6.1, or 5.7.1, and compile. So in the future, anyone can build MacPerl for themselves, with whatever version is current. The big work right now is porting to GUSI 2 and working out a lot of kinks in the system. But the core of perl 5.6 and 5.7/8 are so close, it is going to be mostly quite easy to move forward. The big questions would be additional features, like a better built-in editor, or threading/forking, etc. So to sum up: I am going to stay with Mac OS for the forseeable future. I will do my darndest to release MacPerl 5.6.x and MacPerl 5.8.x, as applicable. After that, we are past the forseeable future, but nevertheless, if I am not still working on it, it should be relatively simple for someone else to build new versions. -- Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
Re: Pass BBEdit perl flags??
[While I do read this list, I may miss things, so if you expect an answer from Bare Bones please do send the question to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Sometimes I get tied up writing code and don't read lost of list mail.] On 5:41 PM 4/21/01 Forest Dean Feighner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to pass BBEdit flags when running a perl script? I don't think so if I understand the question correctly. I've been playing around with a perl script called swigs.pl and it requires additional input to run correctly. ./swigs.pl -t Templates Pictures Gallery If you are running the script in the context of a BBEdit include, certain environment variables are set up for you. If you need to pass arbitrary arguments at some other time, then you can't do it directly right now. Please write this up as a feature request and send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. -- Jim CorreiaBare Bones Software, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web.barebones.com
Re: Pass BBEdit perl flags??
On Sunday, April 22, 2001, at 01:49 PM, Jim Correia wrote: On 1:44 PM 4/22/01 Forest Dean Feighner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My apologies, I don't want to turn this into a feature feud like I've seen on other lists. Naah. I just wanted to be clear that if you want to make sure we (Bare Bones Software) see something, you should send it to us directly. Posting it to the list isn't a guaranteed method. That's all :-) Roger Wilko, thanks for the reply Jim. /=-=-=-=-=-=-|-=-=-=-=-=-=\ Forest Dean Feighner http://www.erie.net/~fdf \=-=-=-=-=-=-|-=-=-=-=-=-=/
