Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Recently I start to write a long article using org-mode. My article contains pounds of images, tables and code. So when I import my org file to pdf, the emacs will freeze for more than one minute to produce the pdf file. However in my opinion, I would like to continue to write or correct my article during the exporting.
So here is the question, can emacs parallelly process the exports with multiple thread or multiple processors?
Of course you can, it's emacs!
(info "(org) The export dispatcher")
‘C-a’
Toggle asynchronous export. Asynchronous export uses an external
Emacs process that is configured with a specified initialization
file.
While exporting asynchronously, the output is not displayed. It is
stored in a list called “the export stack”, and can be viewed from
there. The stack can be reached by calling the dispatcher with a
double ‘C-u’ prefix argument, or with ‘&’ key from the dispatcher.
To make this behavior the default, customize the variable
‘org-export-in-background’.
So, you can export asynchronously to PDF like this: C-eC-alp.
Related
Closed. This question is not about programming or software development. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 2 days ago.
Improve this question
I've tried the usual markdown syntax, for example:
```py
# Here's my Python code
import this
```
But it doesn't seem to work, it just displays it literally as if it was plain text. I wasn't able to find information as to whether markdown was the right syntax, or if there's another one, or if there simply isn't one. But when it replies with code, it does display it in a proper format (monospace font and everything), so that seems to indicate that there might be a way.
Of course this doesn't hinder its comprehension of code in any way, it's just for me, if I want to review the conversation later.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
How do I convert a pdf file to doc?
I tried the following:
soffice.exe --convert-to doc C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\pdfda.pdf
When I hit enter nothing happens, I have libreoffice installed and I'm using Windows 10.
For others landing here the support advice is use soffice NOT soffice.exe since that should on Windows invoke the console command line version soffice.com
see https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/convert-docx-to-pdf-via-the-commandline-on-windows-10/64418/6
Starting from v.6.3, you should not use soffice.exe when working in terminal. You better just omit the extension (like [invoke in folder >] soffice), or explicitly use soffice.com, to use a version specifically created for console, which would output the errors, if any, to the console, instead of silently discarding any output. Also note that you should make sure that LibreOffice is not running in the background when you are launching the command line, because otherwise your command would be redirected to the existing GUI process, and you may again not see the error messages.
Alternatively, specify a separate user profile when calling command line to allow separate processes - see -env command line parameter
Full documentation is at https://documentation.libreoffice.org/en/english-documentation/
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 10 months ago.
Improve this question
I need to protect my Microsoft Word document against text copying.
I have found a solution in restricting the permissions described here.
Instead of "No Changes (Read only)", I use "Filling in forms" and then insert the password.
My question is: is this way really safe? Can't someone hack my password?
PS: I have read that it is possible to save the document as HTML and then to find the hex version of pass in the code of the document. But I myself couldn't decrypt it.
As long as anybody can read it, there's no way you can prevent people from copying and pasting it in another file with a 100% success.
Even if selection is disabled, you would still need to deal with the analog hole. In layman's terms, there's nothing you can do to prevent people from, for example, printing it then OCRing it to a new Word document, getting an editable version that way.
That said, you're probably better exporting to PDF if you want to prevent most people from editing them.
I agree completely with what Marcos says. However there is a more secure way than using forms protection (which is in no way secure!) to prevent copying from within the Word application interface. Look up the term "Information Rights Management" in connection with the version of Office you're using.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
When using \ef <function_name> to edit a function with psql, it puts the modified function (which can be over 100 lines in some cases) into the query buffer to execute. Works great! But, then when I up-arrow to scroll through history, the whole function pops back up, and in a couple of cases is longer than the terminal window and it's kind of mess. Is there anyway to keep the actual "create or replace function" out of history?
Just an annoyance here, but it really bugs me, and I'm obviously either the only one or I can't figure out the right Google search for how to fix. :\
note: I do understand that I can go into the .psql_history file and manually remove the entries. It would just be nice to not have to do this.
No there is not possibility to filter history in psql - and what I know, there is no plan to change it.
Sorry for offtopic - write only adhoc function in psql. Don't use psql or pgAdmin for writing plpgsql functions. These tools has this functionality, and it is not bad, but much more preferable way is writing to file (mainly for nontrivial functions) - use your favourite editor and import this file to Postgres.
files can be simply versioned - use Git, ...
code in files can be logically modularized
code in files can be much richer commented
use "make", "Makefile" for import
with git or other similar tool - code can be simply shared in team - anybody can know who and what did in code.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 9 years ago.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Improve this question
Is it possible to write a System V init script (the scripts usually stored in /etc/init.d and run with service) in Perl, and have the shell recognize the #!/usr/bin/perl? Would there be any downside to doing this?
The scripts themselves can be written in any language, but support tools may need to parse the script for metadata required to decide when the initscript will start/stop. This restricts the choices to those which can make this metadata available in the form that the tools accept.
Additionally, there may be external files written in shell script which the initscript will require in order to operate properly/efficiently/effectively. Unless these files are very simple, any parser used to read them may grow very complex.