Hello,
I was wondering if someone has already done the following for Plan9:
Allowing to render visually non visual characters (controls and blanks)
but not with a vis(1) encoding, but by substituting the font, that is
switching to a font that has, as subfonts, the font already used for
display,
mveety, are you mentally ill? i only take bitcoin and human sacrifices.
On 5/2/13, Matthew Veety mve...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel like you're taking rips off the wrong bong tonight. Amazon payments
are way better.
On May 1, 2013, at 22:46, mycroftiv 9gridchan
mycrof...@sphericalharmony.com
Hello again,
Thanks for the discussion!
I wound up submitting a proposal for the web draw server:
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/gsoc2013/drh/1
--
David Hoskin r...@davidrhoskin.com
Regexp(6) handles characters that are runes.
I wonder if Plan9 developers, when trying to design a way towards some
localization, have ever thought of bytes (octets) regexp, that is using
regexp with not rune but octets strings (maybe UTF-8 as is) allowing to
use regexp with binary too, not only
Regexp(6) handles characters that are runes.
perhaps the man page is misleading. rune in this context means utf-8.
see regexp(2). all the functions take char*s.
I wonder if Plan9 developers, when trying to design a way towards some
localization, have ever thought of bytes (octets) regexp,
Hello,
I have a problem with writing correctly a here document in rc.
I wrote, say:
s = (1 2)
for(i in $s) {
mkdir -p $i
cp POSCAR $i
@{
cd $i
ed POSCAR EOF [2]/dev/null
}
}
2c
$i
.
w
q
EOF
and I wanted to have the 2nd line of
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:48:06AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
Regexp(6) handles characters that are runes.
perhaps the man page is misleading. rune in this context means utf-8.
see regexp(2). all the functions take char*s.
But the source files deal with runes...
one of the points of
This is a reflexion made to me by a developer who can use, when
needed, regexp (ed(1) or sed(1)) on an Unix where they still deal
with char (bytes) to search for a string of bytes in a binary.
i have never needed to do this. could you provide some motiviation
for grepping for a wierd byte in
putting a little more thought into your actual problem, use tcs:
tcs -f 8859-1
which (as i remember) will map 0x80-ff to U0080-00ff and you can use
normal utf8 regular expressions.
tristan
--
All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:44:38AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
This is a reflexion made to me by a developer who can use, when
needed, regexp (ed(1) or sed(1)) on an Unix where they still deal
with char (bytes) to search for a string of bytes in a binary.
i have never needed to do this.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:43:10AM -0400, Tristan wrote:
And after some thought, I don't see an obvious reason why the regexp
could not be used with bytes strings (so UTF-8 is OK) without trying to
match runes (since not every bytes string is a correct UTF-8 sequence).
with octet based
your exact problem still isn't clear to me, but certainly there've
been times when I want to search for some array of characters
in a binary blob. i don't believe i've needed anything beyond a
literal string of bytes, but i could imagine from there the utility of
something regexp-like.
i think
Why does this functionality have to be overloaded into existing tools
that are already in common use?
khm
But that is exactly my point: to have localization far from regexp.
Regexp taking simply a string of bytes and matching strings of bytes.
the plan 9 model is that all text is utf-8, with the exception of
internal encodings which may be Runes.
is your proposal
- to change programs that take
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 05:02:45PM +0200, Bence Fábián wrote:
you want to change default behaviour and make the usual usecase special?
For the moment, I don't want to change anything, I'm trying to be
convinced where the border has to be: characters (for me user
level) on the one side, octets
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:10:34AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
Why does this functionality have to be overloaded into existing tools
that are already in common use?
I'm speaking about the libregexp. Not about the use existing tools do
with it.
--
Thierry Laronde tlaronde +AT+
s = (1 2)
for(i in $s) {
mkdir -p $i
cp POSCAR $i
@{
cd $i
ed POSCAR EOF [2]/dev/null
}
}
2c
$i
.
w
q
i usually solve this problem like this
for(i in 1 2){
mkdir -p $i || fatal
cp POSCAR $i
For the moment, I don't want to change anything, I'm trying to be
convinced where the border has to be: characters (for me user
level) on the one side, octets strings on the other system and
library side (on a distributed system, it makes sense that filenames,
being userlevel nicknames be
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:19:38AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
the plan 9 model is that all text is utf-8, with the exception of
internal encodings which may be Runes.
is your proposal
- to change programs that take regular expressions to be exceptions to
the plan 9 text model, or
No:
On 2 May 2013 17:24, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
i usually solve this problem like this
for(i in 1 2){
mkdir -p $i || fatal
cp POSCAR $i || fatal
@{
{
echo 2c
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM, mycroftiv 9gridchan
mycrof...@sphericalharmony.com wrote:
The Loonie Revolution is proud to announce and sponsor:
CODE AS THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW summer
Is this statement available on a web page somewhere? Might be worth
sharing on social
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:38:25PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
Regexp(6) handles characters that are runes.
Answering to myself: regexp deals with entities called characters.
Some regexp specifications ('.', ranges, classes etc.) apply to
characters.
This means that the size of the
is your proposal
- to change programs that take regular expressions to be exceptions to
the plan 9 text model, or
No: to have a libregexp being agnostic about any encoding. The tools can
stay, for user, the same, simply libregexp would not be text based but
octets based.
there's
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:11:26PM -0400, Scott Elcomb wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:46 PM, mycroftiv 9gridchan
mycrof...@sphericalharmony.com wrote:
The Loonie Revolution is proud to announce and sponsor:
CODE AS THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW summer
Is this statement
please pardon the silly question, but... how about piping the binary data
through xd(1) before sending it to regexp(3)?
--
dexen deVries
[[[↓][→]]]
I have seen the Great Pretender and he is not what he seems.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:53:19PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
i see we're at an impass. since i don't agree that utf-8 is a user
interface thing. it's more entrenched than that.
why don't you code something up?
Because I have started sketching (this was for kerTeX/RISK) basys i.e.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:45:28PM +0200, dexen deVries wrote:
please pardon the silly question, but... how about piping the binary data
through xd(1) before sending it to regexp(3)?
Because it will work only for some cases, since newlines and formatting
come in the picture and it still
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:45:28PM +0200, dexen deVries wrote:
please pardon the silly question, but... how about piping the binary data
through xd(1) before sending it to regexp(3)?
Because it will work only for some cases, since newlines and formatting
come in the picture and it
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:22:21PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
can you give an example of xd outputting something that's not a rune?
Indeed, if the regexp is an ASCII representation matching xd outputs
there is not _this_ problem. But this is limited regexp, since one can
not use character
Indeed, if the regexp is an ASCII representation matching xd outputs
there is not _this_ problem. But this is limited regexp, since one can
not use character ranges (it depends on the size); not '.'; because
now you're at both ends. the whole reason for this approach is to
match bytes that
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 03:22:21PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
can you give an example of xd outputting something that's not a rune?
if we're talking about xd, i'll suggest 'tcs -f 8859-1' again in which case:
Indeed, if the regexp is an ASCII representation matching xd outputs
there is
or, a spruced-up authentication server.
due to a failed cx4 switch, i've been updating a number of machines
to spf+.
in the process, it seemed easier to replace the authentication server
than to just slap a new nic in it.
since cinap's iplfat gives one the ability to boot from usb, and usb
32 matches
Mail list logo
