> Is it really so? R. Cox (Regular Expression Matching Can Be Simple And
> Fast), I think, shows, that repetition can be first expanded and then
> used even by the nice (non-backtracking) algorithms, like this:
>
> e{3} --> eee
> e{3,5} --> ?e?
> e{3,} --> eee+
>
> where would the problem arise
I still don't get the discussion. This is a research system. People
want something. So implement that feature and see how it goes!
Report when done :-)
ron
> But I think that anyone not under the influence of psychedelic
> substances that has suffered PCR, will agree we don't want to move in
> that direction, and even if small, counting is a step in that
> direction.
Your feelings are understandable, given the horror of pcre, but
in this case they ar
> Isn't it sad being in plan9?! Things should be simple, but not
> simpler than that.
I am not sad being in plan9 [sic].
I have used it as my main OS for about eight years and I have used sam
exclusively for ten. During that time I cannot remember ever needing
or wanting repeat counts on regular
> i disagree with your premise that only vim has the vigor to
> modify your super special file. all you need is f and f*.
> f transforms your source into something easy to edit in acme.
> f* transforms it back into the original form. easy peasy.
> or, you can write a simple program that edits the
> The result of this discussion basically has been: neither acme nor sam
> is suited for the original problem, there is no simple way present in
> plan9 allowing you to edit such files with long lines, which are quite
> commonly and with justification present in the world. Only Vim, which
> was por
> this is plan 9. we don't ask if new feature
> x would not cause a problem, we ask if x
> would make plan 9 a better system.
well, no-one disputes the claim, if you read twice.
> i'm
> quite sure one would be wrong in assuming
> that plan 9's designers did not know about
> repetition. i think
> "Sam and Acme use a simple, pure form of regular expressions. If they
> had the counting operations, this would be a trivial task, but to add
> them would open the door to the enormous, ill-conceived complexity of
> (no longer) regular expressions as the open source community thinks of
> them."
>
> > Sam and Acme use a simple, pure form of regular expressions. If they
> > had the counting operations, this would be a trivial task, but to add
> > them would open the door to the enormous, ill-conceived complexity of
> > (no longer) regular expressions as the open source community thinks of
>
>From earlier in this thread:
"Sam and Acme use a simple, pure form of regular expressions. If they
had the counting operations, this would be a trivial task, but to add
them would open the door to the enormous, ill-conceived complexity of
(no longer) regular expressions as the open source communi
2009/3/4 Rob Pike :
> Not all the features adapt as easily.
>
> -rob
By counted repetittion I've always meant just the mentioned, i.e.
{n}
{n,}
{,m}
{n,m}
.
What feature do you have on mind?
Thanks
Ruda
Not all the features adapt as easily.
-rob
> Sam and Acme use a simple, pure form of regular expressions. If they
> had the counting operations, this would be a trivial task, but to add
> them would open the door to the enormous, ill-conceived complexity of
> (no longer) regular expressions as the open source community thinks of
> them.
I
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
> .,.1000
>
> and then snarf.
>
> It's a different model from the one you are familiar with. That is
> not a value judgment either way, but before pushing too hard in
> comparisons or suggestions it helps to be familiar with both.
I understand, I d
.,.1000
and then snarf.
It's a different model from the one you are familiar with. That is
not a value judgment either way, but before pushing too hard in
comparisons or suggestions it helps to be familiar with both.
-rob
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
> Do you see utility in counting/movement commands if they are not
> combined with regular expressions?
>
> If you want to make a substitution to the thousandth match of a
> regular expression on a line, try
>
> s1000/[^ ]+/yyy/
>
> But to na
Do you see utility in counting/movement commands if they are not
combined with regular expressions?
If you want to make a substitution to the thousandth match of a
regular expression on a line, try
s1000/[^ ]+/yyy/
But to navigate to that place is not as straightforward. Counting only
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
> Sam and Acme use a simple, pure form of regular expressions. If they
> had the counting operations, this would be a trivial task, but to add
> them would open the door to the enormous, ill-conceived complexity of
> (no longer) regular expressions
Sam and Acme use a simple, pure form of regular expressions. If they
had the counting operations, this would be a trivial task, but to add
them would open the door to the enormous, ill-conceived complexity of
(no longer) regular expressions as the open source community thinks of
them.
So yes: use
i agree complaining about the formats is pointless. and hey, at least
it's text. last plain text format with slightly awkward lines i had to
play with, they went and changed the next version to be ASN.1.
but i don't think the suggestions here for how to make it play well
with Acme are all that bad
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> This discussion strikes me as coming from a different galaxy. It seems
> to me that Acme and Sam clearly don't match the task at hand. We're
> trying to use a screwdriver when we need a jackhammer .
>
> I don't see the point in complaining about
This discussion strikes me as coming from a different galaxy. It seems
to me that Acme and Sam clearly don't match the task at hand. We're
trying to use a screwdriver when we need a jackhammer .
I don't see the point in complaining about file formats. The
scientists in this case don't much care wh
> You can double-click at the beginning of the line and then execute
>
> s//\n/g
> .-0+1000
> u
>
> that will show you what the 1000th word is
it is useful to note down the address here.
s//\n/g
.-0+1000
=#
u
the output of '=#' can then be 'sent' to the
sam window to reach the 1000th word.
sett
> Using a text editor to manipulate files with lines that are thousands
> of words long seems like a not very good idea to me.
1st : I don't see why. I had a feeling there was some tendency (at
least R Pike could have one) not to look at a file as on a list of
lines, but as on a linear stream of b
Using a text editor to manipulate files with lines that are thousands
of words long seems like a not very good idea to me.
But all you need is two awk one liners to automate such task. Get desired word:
awk -v w=1000 -v ORS=' ' -v 'RS= ' 'NR==w { print } '
Replace it with a new value:
awk -v w=
2009/3/3 Russ Cox :
> s//\n/g
> .-0+1000
> u
>
> that will show you what the 1000th word is, and then you
> can go back to it after the undo. It's not ideal, but you asked.
watch out though... that actually takes you to the 1001st word!
> s//\n/g
> .-0+1000
> u
> Russ
Either I don't understand or this can't help me much. It's true that I
can see the 1000th word with this, but I need to edit that word then.
Just seeing it is not enough. The very same word can be on the very
line many times.
Anyway the idea is quite the same as of
Thanks for the suggestions. Basically you propose breaking the line
into many lines, navigate using lines, edit, and then go back. That's
possible and manageable.
There is probably no need for having sth simple for this particular
task, however, generally thinking about it, being able to repeat
ei
> I just had to edit a file which has very long lines having >1000
> 'words' seperated e.g. with a TAB character. I had to find say 1000th
> word on such a line.
>
> In vim, it's easy. You use '1000W' command and there you are.
> Can the same be achieved in sam/acme? The main problem for me is the
2009/3/3 roger peppe :
> 2009/3/3 Rudolf Sykora :
>>> I would do it with awk myself, Much depends on what you want to
>>> do to the 1000'th word on the line.
>>
>> Say I really want to get there, so that I can manually edit the place.
>
> if i really had to do this (as a one-off), i'd probably do i
Ok, I'm a moron for not reading the original post before answering. Never mind.
uriel
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Uriel wrote:
> awk '{n=n+NF} n>1000 {print ":"NR; exit}'
>
> That will print something you can plumb and go to the line you want.
>
> Should be obvious enough how to generalize i
awk '{n=n+NF} n>1000 {print ":"NR; exit}'
That will print something you can plumb and go to the line you want.
Should be obvious enough how to generalize into a reusable script.
(Typed from memory and not tested.)
uriel
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:40 PM, roger peppe wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Rudolf Syko
2009/3/3 Rudolf Sykora :
>> I would do it with awk myself, Much depends on what you want to
>> do to the 1000'th word on the line.
>
> Say I really want to get there, so that I can manually edit the place.
if i really had to do this (as a one-off), i'd probably do it in a
few stages:
copy & paste
> It's horribly inelegant, but I have occasionally done the following:
> Suppose I want to repeat the command xyz 64 times. I type xyz,
> snarf it and paste it three times. Then I snarf the lot of them,
> and paste three times. Then I snarf that and paste three times.
> Ugly as hell, but it does
> I just had to edit a file which has very long lines having >1000
> 'words' seperated e.g. with a TAB character. I had to find say 1000th
> word on such a line.
>
> In vim, it's easy. You use '1000W' command and there you are.
> Can the same be achieved in sam/acme? The main problem for me is the
> I would do it with awk myself, Much depends on what you want to
> do to the 1000'th word on the line.
Say I really want to get there, so that I can manually edit the place.
Ruda
I would do it with awk myself, Much depends on what you want to
do to the 1000'th word on the line.
in sam you can even play with your awk script in the command window, editing it
submitting it and if its wrong you just Undo and try again. Similar things can
be
done in acme I believe but I don't
Hello,
I just had to edit a file which has very long lines having >1000
'words' seperated e.g. with a TAB character. I had to find say 1000th
word on such a line.
In vim, it's easy. You use '1000W' command and there you are.
Can the same be achieved in sam/acme? The main problem for me is the
rep
38 matches
Mail list logo
