On 02/26/2016 11:29 AM, Raphaël Proust wrote:
I find the supposed
“transparency” of changes in a group is often buggy. I.e., when using
something like
,x/
I got it to work for me:
cat test | ssam ',x/start/ { i/\\texttt{/
a/}/
}'
Apparently there is no need to backslash-escape the braces since
On 26 February 2016 at 16:11, Greg Reagle wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What about a third option: use the core
> (editing and structural regexps) of sam (the part that runs with sam -d
> perhaps) and add a TUI. Do we have to re-use the undocumented binary
> protocol just because sa
On 26 February 2016 at 15:28, Greg Reagle wrote:
> I would like to be able to use sam from a console or ssh or computer without
> X11. This is already possible with `sam -d`, but I want to be able to see
> the contents displayed and automatically get updated when I make changes and
> to see the s
On 02/26/2016 10:56 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
In any case, if there*were* an attempt, with more manpower, either to
reverse engineer the binary sam protocol or to implement a new editor,
then I'd be very happy to lend a hand.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What about a third option: use
You certainly aren't alone. I expect I'm the local expert on trying to
draw blood from that stone.
The problem, aside from my not having enough time to do any worthwhile
hobby programming at the moment, is that communication between sam and
samterm is an ad hoc binary protocol, with absolutely zer
I value the intelligence and wisdom of this community, so I'd like to
know what you think of this idea. Has it already been done? Are there
disadvantages that I don't realize? Thanks.
I recently learned the text editor sam[1] and I like it and I think that
Structural Regular Expressions are
I will check it out.
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:40:51 -0300
Marc Collin wrote:
> A contributor already started working on a suckless
> bignum library[0] to use on his bc(1) candidate for
> sbase[1]. Mattias maybe you want to work on that instead
> of starting from scratch. Duplicating efforts is usu
A contributor already started working on a suckless bignum library[0]
to use on his bc(1) candidate for sbase[1].
Mattias maybe you want to work on that instead of starting from
scratch. Duplicating efforts is usually not good when all have the
same goal (suckless bignum, dc and bc).
[0] https://g
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:55:12 +
Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:45:27PM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:39:07 +
> > Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:33:37PM +0100, Mattias
> > > Andrée wrote:
> > > > On
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:48:09PM +0100, Jens Staal wrote:
> On 2016 M02 26, Fri 09:11:20 CET Mattias Andrée wrote:
> > I'm actually using factor. And it is in base systems, so
> > I think it should be included, but I will be simplifying
> > it.
>
> What about including it in ubase instead?
That
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:45:27PM +0100, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:39:07 +
> Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:33:37PM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:31:31 +
> > > Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > >
> > > > O
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:48:09 +0100
Jens Staal wrote:
> On 2016 M02 26, Fri 09:11:20 CET Mattias Andrée wrote:
> > I'm actually using factor. And it is in base systems, so
> > I think it should be included, but I will be simplifying
> > it.
>
> What about including it in ubase instead?
>
Why
On 2016 M02 26, Fri 09:11:20 CET Mattias Andrée wrote:
> I'm actually using factor. And it is in base systems, so
> I think it should be included, but I will be simplifying
> it.
What about including it in ubase instead?
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:39:07 +
Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:33:37PM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:31:31 +
> > Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:28:32PM +0100, Mattias
> > > Andrée wrote:
> > > > On
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:33:37PM +0100, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:31:31 +
> Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:28:32PM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:26:15 +
> > > Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > >
> > > > O
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:31:31 +
Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:28:32PM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:26:15 +
> > Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:19:32PM +0100, Mattias
> > > Andrée wrote:
> > > > On
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:28:32PM +0100, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:26:15 +
> Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:19:32PM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:07:31 +
> > > Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> > >
> > > > O
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:26:15 +
Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:19:32PM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:07:31 +
> > Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 09:47:14AM +0100, Mattias
> > > Andrée wrote:
> > > > On
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:19:32PM +0100, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:07:31 +
> Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 09:47:14AM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:43:02 +0100
> > > FRIGN wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 26 Feb
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:07:31 +
Dimitris Papastamos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 09:47:14AM +0100, Mattias Andrée
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:43:02 +0100
> > FRIGN wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:37:12 +0100
> > > Mattias Andrée wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Mattias,
> > >
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:07:32 +0100
hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> simple doesn't say anything about size.
>
I know. But what is this in reference too?
pgpHr7pRYVnIG.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 09:47:14AM +0100, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:43:02 +0100
> FRIGN wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:37:12 +0100
> > Mattias Andrée wrote:
> >
> > Hey Mattias,
> >
> > > Mostly random things, but regularly when I correct maths
> > > tests.
> >
> >
simple doesn't say anything about size.
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:45:41 +0100
isabella parakiss wrote:
> On 2/26/16, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> > Performance is not really something suckless
> > concerns itself about. They favour solutions
> > that are simpler to implement and maintain
> > but asymptotically slower. But in the case of
>
On 26 February 2016 at 09:42, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:18:20 +0100
> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> I agree with you, but sadly with numerical algorithms, the case is a
> different (it's my area of work).
I know.
> Implementing an Euler-iteration for first order separable ODE's is the
> s
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:43:02 +0100
FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:37:12 +0100
> Mattias Andrée wrote:
>
> Hey Mattias,
>
> > Mostly random things, but regularly when I correct maths
> > tests.
>
> do the primes you ask your students to study fit in 64
> bits?
>
Yes. But sometimes t
On 2/26/16, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> Performance is not really something suckless
> concerns itself about. They favour solutions
> that are simpler to implement and maintain
> but asymptotically slower. But in the case of
^^
this is awful.
i don't understand this whole approach t
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:18:20 +0100
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Hey Anselm,
I agree with you, but sadly with numerical algorithms, the case is a
different (it's my area of work).
> Of course the discussion about numeric algorithms is a bit different,
> though still a simple implementation should not i
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:37:12 +0100
Mattias Andrée wrote:
Hey Mattias,
> Mostly random things, but regularly when I correct maths
> tests.
do the primes you ask your students to study fit in 64 bits?
--
FRIGN
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:20:58 +0100
FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:11:20 +0100
> Mattias Andrée wrote:
>
> Hey Mattias,
>
> > Well, that is pain in the ass.
>
> I know Matlab is a pain in the ass, but it's going to be
> academia mostly who would be "eligible" to use factor(1)
> for so
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:18:20 +0100
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 26 February 2016 at 09:01, Mattias Andrée
> wrote:
> > Performance is not really something suckless
> > concerns itself about. They favour solutions
> > that are simpler to implement and maintain
> > but asymptotically slower. But in
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:11:20 +0100
Mattias Andrée wrote:
Hey Mattias,
> Well, that is pain in the ass.
I know Matlab is a pain in the ass, but it's going to be
academia mostly who would be "eligible" to use factor(1)
for something.
What I could live with is having a naive implementation,
so Joh
On 26 February 2016 at 09:01, Mattias Andrée wrote:
> Performance is not really something suckless
> concerns itself about. They favour solutions
> that are simpler to implement and maintain
> but asymptotically slower. But in the case of
I have to object here. It is correct that performance is n
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:04:23 +0100
FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:54:26 +0100
> isabella parakiss wrote:
>
> Hey izabera,
>
> > the problem with factor is that any naive
> > implementation will pale against the one in gnu
> > coreutils.
> >
> > (gnu)
> > $ time factor 12676506002284027
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:54:26 +0100
isabella parakiss wrote:
Hey izabera,
> the problem with factor is that any naive implementation will pale against
> the one in gnu coreutils.
>
> (gnu)
> $ time factor 1267650600228402790082356974917
> 1267650600228402790082356974917: 1125899906842679 1125899
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:54:26 +0100
isabella parakiss wrote:
> the problem with factor is that any naive implementation
> will pale against the one in gnu coreutils.
>
> (gnu)
> $ time factor 1267650600228402790082356974917
> 1267650600228402790082356974917: 1125899906842679
> 1125899906842723 re
36 matches
Mail list logo
