Re: Combine similar patterns

[anand kumar]

Hi all

 

Sorry for not posting the question clearly, Please find the attachment of the sample file. The matter enclosed in <f1>….</f1=c>, <f1=c>…..</f1=c>….<f1=c>……</f1> are all the foot notes that are spanning on various pages, now what I am trying to do is that to combine all the related footnotes that are spanned in various pages and place them at on place. Here <f1> indicates the starting of the footnotes, <f1=c> indicates that the footnote continues from previous page, the </f1=c> indicates that the foot notes continues in next page and </f1> indicates the end of the footnotes

 

Note :- please open the attached file in DOS or Linux environment

please help in this matter

 

Thanks in advance for the help

Regards
Anand

anand kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi all,

I have a problem in combining the nested/multiple patterns. The input of the file is as follows:

Input:-

A
B
C


D
E
F


G
H


I
J


K


L
M


N
O



and i would like to convert in to the following manner

Output:

A
B
C
G
H
K
N
O

D
E
F

I
J

L
M

I have got the file contents as showed in the input. I am trying to combine the matter between and in to single …….

Can anyone help in how to combine these nested/multiple patterns

Thanks in advance for the help

Regards
Anand


---------------------------------
Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.

---

Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.

~APG 0020088
~SPG 81                  
~TXT 
^C0^Sciences above separated, are not distinguishable at all by |differences in 
their degrees of generality. They are all |equally general; or rather they are 
all, considered as |groups, universal. Every object whatever presents at once 
|the subject-matter for each of them. In every fragment of |substance we have 
simultaneously illustrated the abstract |truths of relation in Time and Space; 
the abstract-concrete |truths in conformity with which the fragment manifests 
its |several modes of force; and the concrete truths resulting |from the joint 
manifestation of these modes of force, and |which give to the fragment the 
characters by which it is |known as such or such. Thus these three classes of 
|Sciences severally formulate different, but co-extensive, |classes of facts. 
Within each group there are truths of |greater and less generality: there are 
general abstract |truths, and special abstract truths; general 
abstract-concrete |truths, and special abstract-concrete truths; general 
|concrete truths, and special concrete truths. But while |within each class 
there are groups and sub-groups and subsub-groups |which differ in their 
degrees of generality, |the classes themselves differ only in their degrees of 
|abstractness.<lr=f1><R>*</R></lr>

^F0^Let us pass to the sub-divisions of these classes. The |first class is 
separable into two parts\p=m-\the one containing |universal truths, the other 
non-universal truths. Dealing |

<fn>
<f1>
^F0^<no><R>*</R></no> Some propositions laid down by M&dot; Littr\l=e'\, in his 
book\p=m-\<I>Auguste Comte et |la Philosophie Positive</I> (published in 1863), 
may fitly be dealt with here. In |the candid and courteous reply he makes to my 
strictures on the Comtean |classification in ``The Genesis of Science,'' he 
endeavours to clear up some of |the inconsistencies I pointed out; and he does 
this by drawing a distinction |between objective generality and subjective 
generality. He says\p=m-\``qu'il |existe deux ordres de 
g\l=e'\n\l=e'\ralit\l=e'\, l'une objective et dans les choses, l'autre 
|subjective, abstraite et dans l'esprit.'' This sentence, in which M&dot; 
Littr\l=e'\ |makes subjective generality synonymous with abstractness, led me 
at first to |conclude that he had in view the same distinction as that which I 
have above |explained between generality and abstractness. On re-reading the 
paragraph, |however, I found this was not the case. In a previous sentence he 
says\p=m-\ |``La biologie a pass\l=e'\ de la consid\l=e'\ration des organes 
\l=a`\ celles des tissus,

</f1=c>
›
~DNO 357
~APG 0020089
~SPG 82                  
~TXT 
^C0^wholly with relations apart from related things, Abstract |Science 
considers first, that which is common to all relations |whatever; and, second, 
that which is common to each order |of relations. Besides the indefinite and 
variable connexions |which exist among phenomena, as occurring together in 
|Space and Time, we find that there are also definite and |invariable 
connexions\p=m-\that between each kind of phenomenon |and certain other kinds 
of phenomena, there exist |uniform relations. This is a universal abstract 
truth\p=m-\that |there is an unchanging order, or fixity of law, in Space and 
|Time. We come next to the several kinds of unchanging |order, which, taken 
together, form the subjects of the |
›
<fn>
<f1=c>
^C0^vinay As the existence of seven cervical vertebr\l=ae\ in each mammal is a 
concrete |fact, the statement of it is a concrete truth, and the statement 
colligating |such truths is not made other than concrete by holding of case 
after case. <br> M&dot; Littr\l=e'\, recognizing the necessity for some 
modification of the hierarchy |of the Sciences, as enunciated by M&dot; Comte, 
still regards it as substantially |true; and for proof of its validity, he 
appeals mainly to the essential <I>constitutions</I> |of the Sciences. It is 
unnecessary for me here to meet, in detail, the |arguments by which he supports 
the proposition, that the essential constitutions |of the Sciences, justify the 
order in which M&dot; Comte places them.

</f1=c>
~APG 0020090
~SPG 83                  
~TXT 
^C0^second division of Abstract Science. Of this second division, |the most 
general sub-division is that which deals with |the natures of the connexions in 
Space and Time, irrespective |of the terms connected. The conditions under 
which |we may predicate a relation of coincidence or proximity in |Space and 
Time (or of non-coincidence or non-proximity) |from the subject-matter of 
Logic. Here the natures and |amounts of the terms between which the relations 
are |
›
<fn>
<f1=c>
^C0^M&dot; Littr\l=e'\, recognizing the necessity for some modification of the 
hierarchy |of the Sciences, as enunciated by M&dot; Comte, still regards it as 
substantially |true; and for proof of its validity, he appeals mainly to the 
essential <I>constitutions</I> |of the Sciences. It is unnecessary for me here 
to meet, in detail, the |arguments by which he supports the proposition, that 
the essential constitutions |of the Sciences, justify the order in which M&dot; 
Comte places them.

</f1=c>
~APG 0020091
~SPG 84                  
~TXT 
^C0^irrespective |of the terms connected. The conditions under which |we may 
predicate a relation of coincidence or proximity in |Space and Time (or of 
non-coincidence or non-proximity) |from the subject-matter of Logic. Here the 
natures and |amounts of the terms between which the relations are |
›
<f1=c>
^C0^an increasing number of specialities; but it simultaneously discloses more 
|and more the generalities within which these specialities fall. Take a case. 
|Zoology, while it goes on multiplying the number of its species, and getting 
|a more complete knowledge of each species (decreasing generality); also goes 
|on discovering the common characters by which species are united into larger 
|groups (increasing generality). Both these are subjective processes; and in 
|this case, both orders of truth reached are concrete\p=m-\formulate the 
|phenomena as actually manifested. The truth that mammals of all kinds |have 
seven cervical vertebr\l=ae\ (I believe there is one exception) is a 
generalization\p=m-\a |general relation in thought answering to a general 
relation in things. |As the existence of seven cervical vertebr\l=ae\ in each 
mammal is a concrete |fact, the statement of it is a concrete truth, and the 
statement colligating |such truths is not made other than concrete by holding 
of case after case. <br> M&dot; Littr\l=e'\, recognizing the necessity for some 
modification of the hierarchy |of the Sciences, as enunciated by M&dot; Comte, 
still regards it as substantially |true; and for proof of its validity, he 
appeals mainly to the essential <I>constitutions</I> |of the Sciences. It is 
unnecessary for me here to meet, in detail, the |arguments by which he supports 
the proposition, that the essential constitutions |of the Sciences, justify the 
order in which M&dot; Comte places them. It |will suffice to refer to the 
foregoing pages, and to the pages which are to |follow, as containing the 
definitions of those fundamental characteristics |which demand the grouping of 
the Sciences in the way I have pointed out. |As already shown, and as will be 
shown still more clearly by and bye, the |radical differences of constitution 
among the Sciences, necessitate the colligation |of them into the three 
classes\p=m-\Abstract, Abstract-Concrete, and Concrete. |How irreconcilable is 
M&dot; Comte's classification with these groups, will be at |once apparent on 
inspection. It stands thus:\p=m-\

<q>
<tbl>
<r>
<c>Mathematics (including rational Mechanics),</c>
<c>partly Abstract, partly |Abstract-Concrete.</c>
</r>
<r>
<c>Astronomy</c>
<c>Concrete.</c>
</r>
<r>
<c>Physics</c>
<c>Abstract-Concrete.</c>
</r>
<r>
<c>Chemistry</c>
<c>Abstract-Concrete.</c>
</r>
<r>
<c>Biology</c>
<c>Concrete.</c>
</r>
<r>
<c>Sociology</c>
<c>Concrete.</c>
</r>
</tbl>
</q>
</f1>
›


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>