 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2011 04:05 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> My text editor allows you to *display* the line ends, so you can
>> visually see which lines end with LF, which ones are CR, and also
>> arbitrary combinations thereof. It can also display other non-printing
>> characters if you wish (which is sometimes useful).
>
> I have emacs set so that it shows whitespaces at the end of lines with
> blue background.
I have my editor set to automatically strip such whitespaces. (And to
add an extra blank line to the end of the file if one is not already
present.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2011 09:02 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 0:35, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Now that might actually be useful. I've yet to find any hex editors.
>
> There's this cool technology that was invented a few years that helps
> you find things. You may have heard of it. ;-)
Oh, Google helps you find *millions* of hex editors. Which all cost
money. And, from the look of their product websites, I suspect about 80%
of them are actually trojans.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/08/2011 05:20 AM, nemesis wrote:
> As for your editor, does it have a kill circular ring to quickly and
> conveniently select latest extracted text entries?
No. But neither does Emacs. (Unless by "convenient" you mean "really
frigging hard to figure out".)
> Does it have parametrized macros to quickly generate text from templates?
No. For that, I use a real programming language.
> Have it got automatic buffers
> for "jumping" back and forth through the text with ease?
I don't even know what that means.
> Oh, sorry for your flashy flint tool...
I never said my editor was perfect. Only that I've never found a better one.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2011 09:25 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 5:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> A precondition is a Bool expression which must be true when a code
>> block is
>> entered. If it isn't true, the code block is allowed to malfunction
>> arbitrarily badly. But if it /is/ true, then when the code block
>> exits, the
>> postcondition is required to be true.
>
> Yeah. They're a lot less useful when you're talking about functional
> languages, because they're really just redefining the function.
Not so much, no.
Defining how to sort some data [efficiently] is a tad more complicated
than defining a test of whether some data is sorted.
> That would be preconditions and postconditions. It wouldn't be DbC, I
> don't think.
OK, well let me rephrase: You can do everything that DbC does. Whether
you still call it DbC is a question which is untirely uninteresting to me.
> The invariant only holds while you're not manipulating the data. E.g.,
> while you're rebalancing the tree, the invariant needn't hold. Now if
> you start cutting global variables up into collections and corresponding
> blocks of code that manipulate them, or talking about "the set of all
> data structures that are manipulated by this particular set of code",
> I'd say you have some OO design going on there. :-)
If you want to consider a module to be some vague kind of "class", then
OK...
>> Let me put it this way: It looks a crapload better than Word, Excel,
>> PowerPoint, OpenOffice, or the HTML rendering of any browser I've tried.
>
> That isn't what TeX was written to compete against.
> All you need is something designed by an actual typesetting company,
> like Adobe. The very fact that you're looking at TeX output that has
> been run thru a PDF is already telling.
Yes. It tells that nobody else will have a way to view DVI files, so I
distribute then as PDF. Your point?
It's not like turning the DVI file into PDF actually alters its
appearence in any way, shape or form.
>> Has there ever /been/ a Unix that isn't distributed in source form?
>
> Of course.
So... how would you compile it? I thought the entire reason Unix was so
popular is that it operates on arbitrary architectures.
> It's certainly possible with Windows. You just need to get the source code.
...which you cannot ever have...
> What part of Windows do you think is monolithic and can't be fairly
> easily replaced that *can* be replaced in Linux?
When you install "Windows", it installs one giant binary blob. I'm sure
Microsoft probably structures it internally as many seperate modules,
but such seperation is not visible in the finished product.
Unix, on the other hand, has the opposite problem: The OS is made up of
several hundred billion tiny programs, each dragging around 80 years of
backwards compatibility support...
>> Well, yeah. Not as random as, say, Shift+Alt+- (I'm looking at you,
>> Emacs).
>> But it's not the sort of thing you'd try just on the off-chance that
>> maybe
>> it does something.
>
> You know, you should google "Windows keyboard shortcuts" and see the
> dozens and dozens of standard shortcuts. It'll probably make your life
> easier. I mean, control-right has worked that way since like Win3.
You mean there's more than one program that uses that particular
shortcut (for the same thing)?
>>> Where I would want to search in a text file to find a word?
>>
>> Where you'd want a special key to move to the next word on the line. But
>> sure, if you wanna do search instead...
>
> If I'm writing code and I want to move three tokens to the right, you
> think it won't be faster with the shift key?
Well, I suppose if you had seriously *huge* tokens, it would be faster.
Like, if you were writing Java or something. But most "words" are only,
like, 5 characters or so. Jabbing the arrow key 5 times is hardly a
difficult task.
>> The output is 4000 lines line? In what universe...?? O_O
>
> That was the small one. You don't think compiling a Linux distro
> generates tens of thousands of lines of output?
Why would you ever compile a Linux distro? (Other than for a laugh.)
>> No, the last time I ran Vi was on an early version of RedHat.
>> Apparently Vi
>> was the only text editor installed, and I was desperately trying to find
>> something to edit the X configuration file so that I could make it
>> start up.
>
> You know what? That's *exactly* why you should learn vim. :-)
>
> vi runs in 32K. emacs won't link on a machine with a megabyte address
> space.
That's unlikely to ever be a problem for me. What /is/ a problem is that
Vi was utterly incomprehensible...
>> I should have forceen a Holy War. ;-)
>
> No, I'm just saying, normally in vi you highlight some text and run it
> thru an external script. If you want to indent the next paragraph, it's
> }!format and if you want to sort it it's }!sort
>
> (Or something like that.)
>
> emacs stuff I've seen is usually implemented in elisp, which means if
> you want to reindent your code, you have to fire up the entire emacs
> infrastructure to do so.
On the other hand, since Emacs is an entire operating system, it appears
that most people just start Emacs after they log in, and never shut it down.
> The point is not "here's a useful plug-in for Haskell", but to show you
> a counter-example to your assertion that VS doesn't support third-party
> languages.
I didn't say that VS doesn't support third-party languages. I said it
was far too /hard/ to implement support for third-party languages.
>> Accessing COM is nowhere near as easy as throwing together a few lines of
>> elisp. (As far as I can tell.)
>
> You're doing it wrong. See the Tcl example, for example. You keep
> claiming it didn't work, but since I don't know what you were trying to
> do or how, I'm not sure why it didn't work. And of course it's possible
> it's just bitrot there too.
I seem to recall it got as far as "require package tcom", and Freewarp
was like "WTF is tcom?" And I had a look at the package description, and
it was like "OK, put this file in /bin, and that file in /lib" and I'm
like "WTF? Where's that?"
Or something like that.
I don't actually /like/ Tcl all that much. I'd prefer something a bit
safer, but hey... from the way you're talking, you make it sound as if
almost /every/ programming language can trivially access COM.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2011 09:01 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 5:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I was asking, more basically, "how do you do useful stuff with
>> COM?"
>
> Oh. You find a COM object that does what you want it to do, and you use it.
I can see how an application might expose a COM object such that
invoking a certain method is like clicking on a particular button. What
I can't figure out is how COM lets you do stuff like link a chart to a
database such that every time the database changes, the chart updates.
I'm not sure how you invoke methods to make that happen.
>> As best as I can tell, COM lets you create "objects" and invoke
>> "methods" on them... that's as far as I was able to figure out.
>
> Yes, that's what COM is for. The "methods" are usually implemented in
> either system libraries or in applications. So an "object" might be an
> excel spreadsheet, and the "methods" would manipulate the cells, set up
> a graph, and then copy the image of the graph to the clipboard for you
> to use.
Would Excel be a single COM object? Or would you have like seperate
objects for each workbook, worksheet, cell, etc?
>> I also figured that the only reason that you can (say) embed an Excel
>> spreadsheet in a Word document is because both products are produced
>> by the same company.
>
> No no no. That's the whole *point* of COM. That's why there's a standard
> interface definition language and such.
See, I've always assumed that the glitering world of native Windows
GUIs, IPC, DLLs, COM, etc. are all behind closed doors, accessible only
to people who know how to write really low-level Windows code. And I've
always assumed that the really /good/ stuff (like embedding one
application inside another) is accessible only to Microsoft themselves.
(Or anybody who pays really vast sums of money. People like Symantec.)
>> I've yet to see a language that can invoke DLLs either...
>
> Maybe you should learn a normal language, then. :-)
So... you mean basically C or C++ then?
>> I'd be perfectly happy doing COM from, say, JavaScript. It's not that
>> Haskell is the problem, it's that I can't see *anything* that speaks COM.
>
> Tcl, VBScript, WScript, VBA, and C# all have trivial interfaces to COM.
Oh dears.
> Didn't you tell me you had written a VBA macro or two?
Yeah. It took me several hours to finally construct a 25-line VBA macro
which performs the utterly trivial task of setting the value of a
certain cell to today's date. This was an exercise in extreme
frustration, as the help files utterly failed to be remotely helpful in
any way. I've been bitter ever since. :-P
>> I get the feeling that the only way to solve this is to use some
>> horrifically awful language like VB...
>
> No, you just have to learn something vaguely normal, and then not give
> up when the first thing you try doesn't work.
Yeah, maybe that's what it comes down to. I tend to avoid all the
MS-designed languages, which is maybe why I can't do COM.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I have emacs set so that it shows whitespaces at the end of lines with
> > blue background.
> I have my editor set to automatically strip such whitespaces. (And to
> add an extra blank line to the end of the file if one is not already
> present.)
But, as I said, I hate it when editors do things without being told to.
Open the file, save it, the end result must be identical. Change it only
if I tell it to change it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 08/08/2011 05:20 AM, nemesis wrote:
> > As for your editor, does it have a kill circular ring to quickly and
> > conveniently select latest extracted text entries?
> No. But neither does Emacs.
So Emacs has an elisp interpreted that can be used basically for anything
that you could ever imagine doing to text. Except having a circular kill
ring, it appears. At least according to you.
> > Does it have parametrized macros to quickly generate text from templates?
> No. For that, I use a real programming language.
When you want to edit a text file, you write a separate program to do
that?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/08/2011 01:43 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> I have emacs set so that it shows whitespaces at the end of lines with
>>> blue background.
>
>> I have my editor set to automatically strip such whitespaces. (And to
>> add an extra blank line to the end of the file if one is not already
>> present.)
>
> But, as I said, I hate it when editors do things without being told to.
OK, fair enough. However, I don't work with any file formats where such
trailing spaces would be significant.
I also don't work with any file formats which should ever contain a tab
character, so I've configured my editor to strip those too.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> As for your editor, does it have a kill circular ring to quickly and
>>> conveniently select latest extracted text entries?
>
>> No. But neither does Emacs.
>
> So Emacs has an elisp interpreted that can be used basically for anything
> that you could ever imagine doing to text. Except having a circular kill
> ring, it appears. At least according to you.
Emacs has a circular kill ring, it's true. I would dispute that it's
/convenient/ though.
>>> Does it have parametrized macros to quickly generate text from templates?
>
>> No. For that, I use a real programming language.
>
> When you want to edit a text file, you write a separate program to do
> that?
No. When I want to generate large chunks of text programatically, I
write a program. (As you can probably tell, this isn't something I need
to do very often.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK, fair enough. However, I don't work with any file formats where such
> trailing spaces would be significant.
> I also don't work with any file formats which should ever contain a tab
> character, so I've configured my editor to strip those too.
And then you lament about the lack of hex editors...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
