hello,
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 07:22:57PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > I the same mood: I realized recently that no implementation of awk
> > seems to implement quantifiers which is really desapointing.
> Awk uses EREs, so if by quantifiers you mean {n,m}, then awk most
> certainly
hello,
> but note that BREs are not a strict subset of EREs
I have to admit that's the way I saw BRE so thanks a lot for noticing me.
I the same mood: I realized recently that no implementation of awk
seems to implement quantifiers which is really desapointing.
I don't realize those things
hello,
> these tools by default use basic regexps (BRE).
Out of curiosity:
To me, it's just a reason of retrocompat: no people dare breaking
everything at some point. I really dislike the fact that it's
confusing (for example: + must be protected but not *).
But is there another good reason
> Otherwise, if I try to just type
> :!sed s/abc/abc\/g % | grep -c abc
> and press enter, I only get the same output I also get out of
same here! I so much wish it worked!
regards
marc
hello,
> That's a neat trick -- IFF you can be *sure* that character won't show
> up in the text. I also feel it's a workaround
this is ok as you can easily check if if the caracter won't show. this
is a "good enough" principle: don't try to fix *all* the cases, just fix
yours.
> understand
hello,
> :!sed s/abc/abc\n/g % | grep -c abc
Note: in sed, "what i just matched" is noted &
> Googled information suggests that the opposite of what's described in
> the man page may be true: You CAN use a literal newline, but you
> can't use \n.
BSD sed is more litteral AFAIK so you need
hello,
> > so you can write:
> >
> > :w|grep -c abc %
> That doesn't really fit the bill:
> 1. This error message is produced: 'The grep command is unknown'
because i wasted it by missing the bang
:w|!grep -c abc %
is a single line way to write
:w
:!grep -c abc %
> 2. grep
> 'abc' in FILE, from within vi.
* % means 'the current file' in vi commands so you can write
* | is the command separator
* grep has a -c flag to count occurrences
so you can write:
:w|grep -c abc %
you can also write the content of the buffer to a pipe (my prefered
solution here):
hello,
> The bang command has an equivalent in vi.
this is the same command indeed but the ergonomy is quite different:
vi don't "generate" the begining of a command including the range so
we can't just delete a char and edit.
> The closest you
> can get to executing the same replacement via a
hello people,
Does anyone know how to get this done even faster:
ma
}
:'a,ms/foo/bar
even if it's short, I really would like to have
something which work the way I abuse the ! command in vim:
!}
actually write a range on command line like
:.,.6!
so I just have to replace
hello Ottavio,
> BTW, for the non-initiated, what is this?
https://www.openbsd.org/groups.html
see the "this template" link to go there:
https://www.openbsd.org/grp-tmpl.txt
cheers,
marc
hello Ingo,
> Heck, piping to sort, or wc + undo are two of the most common used
> commands.
no need to pipe and undo: just write to a pipe
:%w !wc
> Under vi, !}fmt is also a favorite
> though vim does have better integrated commands...
AFAIK, ! work exactly the same between vim and
hello Ingo,
> > rare cases. so i finally think it's not worth ... col -b is an elegant
> > solution.
> Premature optimization is evil.
this case isn't about optimizing, it's about slowing down 99.999%
to add a case that already have an elegant and simple solution.
but as i said: i don't
hello Ingo,
> :map K yw:E /tmp/vi.keyword.$$p!!xargs man
>
> i get:
>
> Error detected while processing function
> line 30:
> E132: Function call depth is higher than 'maxfuncdepth'
> Press ENTER or type command to continue
it's a bug in the :E command, i reported it there:
> I have no idea what the "much more" refers to.
all the things i can do with vim are very useful while reading a man
page.
* a file is mentionned ? use gf to jump in it
* a command is provided? edit it so it fit your system and run it with
!!
* want to add something to your notes? ranges to
dear Ingo,
> Absolutely. Using web searches for software documentation is an
> awkward and error-prone crutch that should be avoided for many
> reasons. For OpenBSD documentation, it is never needed.
Actually, the quality of the manpages was one of the reasons i tried
openbsd and one of the
hello,
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 12:06:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Have you looked at:
> man col
> ?
how can you come to the point to read the manpage of a command
that doesn't seems to be related to your problem (i was searching
something around the man input so i tried troff, mandoc, man,
hello,
> Try the mandoc manual page, man is just a front-end to it. Both
> man/mandoc support -T option and you can specify ascii/utf8 to get the
> formatted page but it still adds all escape sequences.
indeed, that's why i asked
> The documentation
> says to pipe the output to col -b to
> It's the designated tool for the job. That fmt also happens to
> replace sequences character1-backspace-character2 with character2
> is more of a lucky coincidence.
ok then ... good to know. so by extension: by design, there is no
way to use the man command to render the text directly?
hello,
> > * is there a way to ask man to deliver pure (non-formatted) text ?
> Pipe its output through "col -b".
what is the gain of using col over fmt ?
> > * is there a way to introduce a | in vi macros?
> Yes, by prefixing it with a ^V character. To enter ^V in vi's input
> mode, press
hello,
coming from linux, i'm used to read manpages
in a vi buffer so i can do much more than
reading the content. i basically use
:r !man ls
or
!!sh (when the line content is "man ls")
under openbsd, it seems man doesn't if stdout
is a tty. i digged the man manual a little bit
hello,
> PID=`pgrep gloob`
> if [ -z "$PID" ]
> then
> /usr/local/bin/gloob -f poor_security_a_bad_idea_to_run.conf
> fi
is there a reason to not use the pgrep status ?
pgrep -q gloob || /usr/local/bin/gloob
regards,
marc
> you can do by array
Both of them are borring once you used the signatures but they are still
experimental.
Also: if you don't mind a new dependency: Function::Paramaters is so
much convenient.
regards
marc
> Any modern mailreader can easily tag messages as thread, so it's trivial to
> avoid a given thread, as long as people don't fuck around with the
> In-Reply-To info.
i have to admit this isn't an argument: if most of the people don't read
it, we should have the ability to save bandwidth by
> Yes well, my point is if you want to make a piece of code
> incomprehensible, I don't think there is a language that will stop you.
indeed. but i now realize the counterpart is not true because everyone
has something different in mind when it comes to readability.
last example was yesterday:
> You have something like 3 lines of perl to play with ;)
is there a todo list somewhere ?
regards
marc
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 02:16:52PM -0500, Daniel Jakots wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:49:28 +0100, Marc Chantreux
> > some endless sterile debates
> Like this thread, or worse?
* long doesn't mean endless
* sharing points of view is never sterile (yours is inspired by other
ones,
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 10:42:54AM -0600, danieljb...@icloud.com wrote:
> I don't understand why people say that perl's flexibility is a negative.
because sometimes, flexibility permit some endless sterile debates about
the coding style.
marc
> I will always lean towards idiot-proofing the code.
:))
fair enough.
regards
marc
hello,
> > my %user = qw(
> > login mc
> > shell /bin/zsh
> > );
> > print $user{login};
> my %user = ( login => 'mc', shell => 'bin/zsh');
> is way more readable in that case, I think,
> and it does showcase what a *smart* quoting system can do.
well ... i prefer
> Not sure about anyone else, but comparing the Python vs Perl example you
> gave above, I would still say Python is the nicer-looking language.
i was just saying that there is no need for yield in perl. now i can
show you tons of examples to demonstrate perl code is not only
more "unixish" but
hello Stuart,
> Heh, I've heard Perl described as executable line noise, and for sure,
> it will let you write code like that.
arf ... i just tried to explain were this "linenoise" bullshit came from
just in the answer i gave to frank
regards
marc
> Did you ever look at the suite of modules from John Syracusa (DB::Rose and
> the like) ? fairly clean and nice.
I had this under my radar but no one around be wanted to test anything
else but DBIxC so i never took time to read the code or use it.
regards
marc
hello,
> > what do you mean by this? prototypes are here for decades and signatures
> > are experimental and i guess it will be core in some releases.
> Stuff like
> $o->method { code }
ooohh right! this is a thing i also missed with perl (fixed in raku).
> > Template toolkit is still by far
hello,
> The only thing that's really missing in perl is proper thread support.
> Don't know if that's going to happen.
just to be sure: are you aware of the MCE module?
https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/MCE/lib/MCE.pod
regards
marc
hello,
> Actually all the cool and useful ideas that perl6 had DID trickle down
> into perl5 a few years ago.
even if you load a lot of modules from CPAN (which i tried to do with
https://metacpan.org/pod/Sympatic), this is not even close to be true!
for example, raku has
* PEGs are objects
*
hello,
> The only thing that's really missing in perl is proper thread support.
> Don't know if that's going to happen.
seems ... complicated ...
> I have a wish-list of things that are not that likely to happen, I would
> like to be able to use prototypes on methods, for instance.
what do you
hello,
as intro: i would like to make clear that i'm not promoting perl (my go
to langage for scripting is now raku by far) but as i was a member of the perl
community more than 20 years, i have some opinions about it.
> felt like a random hack, especially compared to ruby. The only thing I
>
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 06:57:02AM -0600, Daniel Boyd wrote:
> As one of the few remaining people out there who considers perl to be
> their favorite language—starting to wonder if it’s just me and Larry
> Wall at this point—I’d like to say that perl should stay in base on
> its merits, all the
> I am running docker(yeah i know ..) but anyhow the task is to get a
> nice load balancer up in a docker container and i want to use relayd
> ofcourse ! has anyone gotten relayd to work in docker or has anyone
> created openbsd images for docker ?
AFAIK, docker is just an ugly wrapper on top of
> With the exception of perlpod(1)/pod2man(1), most programs that
good to know as i'm really confortable with pod.
> page formatting. scdoc(1) is not an exception; the output code
> quality is poor indeed
> * stray .P before and after .SH
> ...
this list is really interesting. maybe it should
hello,
> https://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan18-mandoc.pdf
which leds me to the conference video. it was really interesting.
> Nothing is wrong with trying to make things simple for users, quite
> to the contrary. But that is not an excuse for delivering solutions
> that are technically
> > > documentation language, mdoc(7), at all, neither for input nor for
> > > output, already makes me raise an eyebrow or two
> Vim has many useful HTML plugins (or write your own)
yes ... but why should i bother with an uggly distracting format when
i can have a format that is close visually
hello,
> > that said: i'll really give troff a try again when i will figure out how
> > to create templates for the documents i need (as i said in a previous
> > message: i have a layout problem)
>
> First mention of templates in this four dozen message thread.
i replied to this thread but as
hello,
> > is one of the most useful tools I have ever used. If you are writing
> > any sort of documentation then I *highly* recommend checking it out
> I strongly oppose that point. There is no need at all to bother
> with pandoc when you write documentation. (It may be useful for
> other
> My substitute for _pandoc_ is the _org-mode_ of emacs, which is for some
> people also good for outlining etc.
if i quit using vim some day, it will be for something lightweight so
i'll never run emacs, i guess.
regards
marc
hello,
> Does _pandoc_ work on OpenBSD now?
i realized i haven't try on BSD as my desktop remains a linux for the
moment. sorry i lost the focus because of this very appealing thread.
regards
marc
> the "print/texlive" port is how ridiculously large it is.
because it comes with the whole distribution. i never tested but
https://tectonic-typesetting.github.io/ seems to fix it by downloading
stuff on demand. however, another problem with tex is performance.
troff is blazing fast. however...
> documents, but for my use case, LibreOffice has treated me well. I primarily
> use it for simple things like putting together invoices, writing articles,
> rendering documents to PDF or postscript, and reading .docx files people
> send me.
> I'm sure there's a superior way to do all this,
hello,
> You can't go wrong with LibreOffice. I've written thousands of pages over
> the years with it. It may be too "heavy" for some, but for me, if I'm doing
> something too complex for vi or mousepad, I just fire up LibreOffice.
to me there is no such thing that is too complex for the unix
hello,
> I didn't know [how] ! took movement commands. Thanks. I'll have a play
> with that one.
almost related: in addition to the motions, vim has a notion of objects
:h objects
so you can easily filter a complete paragraph with
!ap
fmt -w72
in visual mode, you can select
hello,
> > The Unix landscape was fragmented long, long before Linux or the three
> > modern BSDs even existed.
according to
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_history-simple.svg
it started almost just after unix was born.
regards.
marc
hello,
> use Gnome or KDE so I was wondering what do people use for this. Been
> looking at the ports and I see Xapian and others. Any advice on a nice
> setup?
i have the same problem with both code and documentation. i installed
dezi (https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/Dezi/bin/dezi) and
53 matches
Mail list logo