Дана 24/07/13 02:18AM, Pontus Stenetorp написа:
> I take it you have that function for cases where the number of files
> is very large and would not fit the buffer for your shell?
Actually, now that I think of it, that might be the reason why I wrote
that function using find more than two years
Дана 24/07/12 08:50PM, Страхиња Радић написа:
> No, I use the version I listed because I can format the output as I see
> fit, and it gives per-file statistics.
Also, I just now realize this is a case of a "useless use of awk"; I
have no idea why I overlooked that
wc -l *.c
also gives
Дана 24/07/13 02:18AM, Pontus Stenetorp написа:
> Always used:
>
> wc -l $(find vim90 -name '*.[ch]')
>
> Which gives roughly the same *rough* estimate: 516,321.
>
> I take it you have that function for cases where the number of files
> is very large and would not fit the buffer for your
On Tue 09 Jul 2024, Страхиња Радић wrote:
>
> sourcesize()
> {
> find . -name '*.[ch]' -exec wc -l {} \; |
> awk '{
> size = $1
> f = $2
> sum += size
> printf "%10d
Dear Anon Loli:
> (...)
> software should be free, and non-personal information should be free,
> too, without any IP or a requirement for a file "LICENSE".. those are
> just my 2 cents..
if you don't say something about using or redisributing your software or
code then nobody knows and noone
Дана 24/07/09 07:00PM, Anon Loli написа:
> > All that's missing is the URL to the source code of that wonderful
> > editor... if it exists at all.
> >
>
> It's currently offline, off the internet, as far as I know, it was last hosted
> on my eepsite, but circumstances mandated that I had to take
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 08:20:53PM +0200, Страхиња Радић wrote:
> Дана 24/07/09 04:02PM, Anon Loli написа:
> > That's why I use vi, and am working on my own text editor.. I don't know if
> > it'll ever be good, but I'm aiming for Vi-like simplicity, suckless code
> > base
> > and Vim-like
Дана 24/07/09 04:02PM, Anon Loli написа:
> That's why I use vi, and am working on my own text editor.. I don't know if
> it'll ever be good, but I'm aiming for Vi-like simplicity, suckless code base
> and Vim-like features (only most useful ones, the rest would be in a
> patch-form, like
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 06:36:46PM +0200, prx wrote:
>
>
> Le 9 juillet 2024 18:02:31 GMT+02:00, Anon Loli a
> écrit :
> >On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:38:02PM +0200, rfab...@mhsmail.ch wrote:
> >> Dear Страхиња Радић,
> >> dear Jan,
> >> dear Christian
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot for your prompt and
Le 9 juillet 2024 18:02:31 GMT+02:00, Anon Loli a
écrit :
>On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:38:02PM +0200, rfab...@mhsmail.ch wrote:
>> Dear Страхиња Радић,
>> dear Jan,
>> dear Christian
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your prompt and helpful answers!
>>
>> ---
>> Am 2024-07-08 20:35, schrieb Страхиња
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:38:02PM +0200, rfab...@mhsmail.ch wrote:
> Dear Страхиња Радић,
> dear Jan,
> dear Christian
>
> Thanks a lot for your prompt and helpful answers!
>
> ---
> Am 2024-07-08 20:35, schrieb Страхиња Радић:
> > vi lacks a lot of built-in quality of life features that Vim
Dear Страхиња Радић,
dear Jan,
dear Christian
Thanks a lot for your prompt and helpful answers!
---
Am 2024-07-08 20:35, schrieb Страхиња Радић:
vi lacks a lot of built-in quality of life features that Vim has.
Yes, I know Vim from Arch Linux. But for OpenBSD, I'd like to try to
stick to the
12 matches
Mail list logo
