--- Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As to why it does correctly handle ">" quoting, par was built to
> handle such cases, so it gracefully considers "leader"
> characters. By default, I believe par considers whitespace, a
> ">" and the pipe character as its default set of "leader"
> characters that it will treat in a similar fashion.
Ah. I might have read something like this in par's somewhat limited
documentation. Although I freely admit that I find par very confusing
indeed, even though it is very useful for tasks such as this.
> The "par" utility is a rather complex tool with piles of nobs and
> dials for the twiddling. In most cases, the default does what is
> wanted. However, I don't believe there's any "intelligent" way
> for it to detect scripts within quoted text.
I thought as much. What I might do is (as you say) look at trying to see
if there are any markers which define where the shell-code is and change
the regexps. I know of two cases where this is likely to be the case, so
I'll keep you posted.
> To see what's going on, simply write an excerpt of a quoted
> script to a file and simply run it through par, as Vim is doing
> for each block in question. You'll notice that par is what is
> doing the mangling. For just reformatting purpose, it's
> conceivable to use vim's internal reformatting--however, it too
> lacks the superpowers to discern code from non-code in a quotation.
I should point out that it's not just shell code that exhibits this
"problem" -- but you're right -- it's most likely par treating various
leaders characters.
> The short answer, sadly, is "I'm afraid there's no nice way to do
> this".
No worries, I'll just have to convert it back by hand. :)
Thank you as always, Tim.
Thomas.
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease
of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
