Ruby has a program called ri where you can type in 'ri Array' and get its manpage. Is there something like that for scaladoc?
Now that the Scaladoc web "app" is being enhanced with indexes for fast in-browser search, this kind of thing should become much easier, especially now that there's always a JS interpreter in JDK6. I'd suggest filing an enhancement request. :)
Not that I know of, but it would be cool. I don't think it would be too hard to do it, given that scaladoc (I heard) is supposed to be kind of pluggable.
vim-scaladoc was released in late 2012.
With a command-line browser like elinks, and just one directory which matches scaladoc, you can use:
#!/bin/bash
for link in $(locate scaladoc | grep $1); do elinks $link ; done
Stefan Zeiger's Extradoc would probably be a good basis for this and other documentation tools.
Related
I've just stumbled upon some cryptic sed expression in a legacy script. Could you give me some hints how to start decoding it?
Best thing would be some automatic tool translating sed incantations to English, but for a close runner up, I'd be very grateful for some nice index of (all) sed commands. Otherwise, I'm certainly highly interested in any help at all on how to quickly attack the problem (other than having to read the manual cover to cover...).
(Side note: as you may have guessed, I don't want to just paste the expression here, as I'd like to be able to do it easier and faster next time I stumble on some similar line noise...)
I'd be very grateful for help!
Edit: regexps themselves aren't problem, by the way, I'm good enough at them.
i don't think there is automatic tool that can 'transalte' sed commands to english. however you may want to check http://aurelio.net/sedsed/ . it will help you to understand one sed script, what it does, and how.
anyway, if you list some examples would be good.
This might work for you.
Unix in a Nutshell by Robbins has a very nice chapter on sed. Clear and concise descriptions of the commands.
Your best bet would be to learn the sed language in-depth. Unforunately, the sed documentation is more like a reference. Here's a nice step by step guide that doesn't take too long to read.
I found "Sed One-Liners Explained" to be very informative as well as fun.
I know I risk asking a speculative question, however, inspired by this recent question I wonder which editor does the best job of syntax highlighting Perl. Being well aware of the difficulties (impossibilities) of parsing Perl I know there will not be a perfect case. Still I wonder if there is a clear leader in faithful representation.
N.B. I use gedit and it works fine, but with known issues.
Komodo Edit does a good job and also scans your modules (including those installed via CPAN) and does well at generating autocomplete data for them.
I'm a loyal vim user and rarely encounter anything odd with the native syntax.vim, except for these cases (I'll edit in more if/when I find them; others please feel free also):
!!expression is better written !!!!expression (everything after two ! is rendered as a comment quoted string; four ! brings everything back to normal)
m## or s### renders everything after the # as a comment; I usually use {} as a delimiter when avoiding / for leaning toothpick syndrome
some edge cases for $hash{key} where key is not a simple alphanumeric string - although it's safer to enclose such key names in '' anyway so as to not have to look up the exact cases for when a bareword is treated as a key name
I haven't used it, but Padre should be good since it's written in Perl. IIRC It uses PPI for parsing
jEdit...with the tweaks that I have amassed over the years. It's got the most customizable syntax highlighting I've ever seen.
I use Emacs in CPerl mode. I think it does a terrific job, although similar to Ether's answer, it's not perfect. What's more, I usually use Htmlize to publish highlighted code to the web. It's kind of annoying to use fancier forums like this one that do their own syntax highlighting, since it's not really any easier and the results aren't as good.
Most PHP Developers are likely familar with the Syntax Highlighter called "GeSHi", which takes code, highlights it, with the use of HTML and CSS:
include('geshi.php');
$source = 'echo "hello, world!";
$language = 'php';
$path = 'geshi/';
$geshi = new GeSHi($source, $language, $path);
echo $geshi->parse_code();
GeSHi Supports a wide range of languages.
I wonder, is there a similar Module for Perl?
Perl has a port of Kate highlighting system: Syntax::Highlight::Engine::Kate which seems to be somewhat close to what you need. It appears to be part of Padre.
You also have an option of HTML client side highlighters (logic is obviously JS), such as Google's code prettifyer
Two good lists of syntax highlighting engines are:
Wiki syntax highlighting article - among the ones it lists, the Perl ports/APIs seem to exist for Kate and Colorer (Syntax::Highlight::Universal)
This very good review of HTML syntax highlighters, which contains a lot of client-side ones such as SHJS and many others.
Please be aware that NONE of those generic highlighters work "100% correctly", the way the syntax highlighters work in good IDEs, because they use regular expressions for approximate parsing instead of lexers for actual language grammar parsing. More details on the Wiki
You can also consider this for client side syntax highlighting.
http://alexgorbatchev.com/SyntaxHighlighter/
I have had some very good results with the PPI::HTML package. It uses PPI to parse the Perl before converting the text to HTML.
Pure Perl: Syntax::Highlight::Engine::Kate (there is Kate plugin for Padre IDE).
Wrappers for C libraries: Syntax::Highlight::Universal, Syntax::SourceHighlight.
Using external tools: Text::VimColor, Text::EmacsColor.
Also there are many one-language highlighters on CPAN.
You can always write a small php script to make GeSHi usable from command line and then call it within your perl script.
I did this for gitweb so I could leave svn (and websvn) behind for good.
My search brought me here, because I was looking for a 'Perl Syntax Highlighter' like the title said and not an general highlighter implemented in Perl.
To highlight only Perl, perltidy --html can be used. It belongs to the Perl::Tidy distribution the main module can be imported and used without spawning a process.
https://metacpan.org/dist/Perl-Tidy/view/bin/perltidy#HTML-OPTIONS
So not what the OP actually wanted to know, but hopefully of help for others coming here for the same reasons like me ... :)
What is an easy way to provide a string value to my user and let the user edit it... without him having to retype the whole string if it's not 100% correct.
Though it's difficult to tell for sure what you're asking for, you probably want Term::ReadLine.
See Term::Prompt or Prompt::ReadKey.
Or for something a bit higher level, perhaps IO::Prompt
Or if you have Perl 5.10.0 or higher, try Damian Conway's IO::Prompter (the successor to IO::Prompt). I wish I could use it for its timeout feature, but alas I'm stuck on Perl 5.8.8.
We're struggling to come up with a command name for our all purpose "developer helper" tool, which we are using on our project. It's like a wrapper for our existing tools like cmake and hg. The purpose of the command is really just to make our lives easier by combining multiple commands into one (for example, publishing packages). For example, we have commands like:
do conf
do build
do install
do publish
We've considered a few ambiguous names like do (as above) and run, but obviously, do is a Linux bash command and run is pretty ambiguous.
We'd like our command to be 2 chars short, preferably - but who thinks we're asking the impossible? Is there a practical way to check the availability of command names (other than just typing them into your terminal), or is it just a case of choose one and hope nobody else will use it? Are we worrying about nothing?
Since it's a "developer helper" tool why not use hm [run|build|port|deploy|test], Help Me ...
Give it a verbose name, then let everyone alias it to whatever they want. Make sure you use the verbose name in other scripts so that it removes ambiguity.
This way, each user gets to use whatever makes sense to him/her, and the scripts are more readable and more easily searchable (for example, grepping four "our_cool_tool" will usually yield better results than grepping for "run").
How many 2-character words are useful in this context? I think you need four. With that in mind, here are some suggestions.
omni
torq
fluf
mega
spif
crnk
splt
argh
quat
drul
scud
prun
sqat
zoom
sizl
I have more if you need them.
Pick one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all_two-letter_combinations
To check the availability of command names, I suggest looking for all two-letter filenames that are in the directories in your path. You can use a script like this
for item in `echo $PATH | sed 's/:/ /g'` ; do
ls -1d $item/??
done
It won't show builtins in your shell (like "do" as you mentioned) but it's a good start.
Change ?? to ??? for three-letter files, etc.
I'm going to vote for qp (quick package?) since it's easy to pronounce, easy to type, and easy to remember where the keys are on the keyboard.
I use "asd". it's short and most developers type it without thinking
(oh, and you can always claim later that it stands for some "Advanced Script for Developers" if you need to justify yourself a few years from now)
How about fu? As in Kung Fu. It's a special purpose tool. And it's really easy to type.
I think that run is a good name, at least anybody that will download your project will know what to do. Calling it without parameters should reveal your options.
Even 'do' will do, I think you can use backquotes to run it from bash scripts.
Also remember that running the tools without parameters will tell you what options you have.
Use makefiles to do everything for you.
How about calling it something descriptive, like 'build_runner', and then just aliasing it to 'br' (or preferred acronym) in your .bashrc?
There is a really crappy tool called cleartool (part of clearcase), and people will alias it on their machine to "ct". Perhaps you can have a longer command and suggest users alias it.
It would probably be best to do something like ire_and_curses suggested, name it descriptively then alias it to a 2 letter command. If I was choosing, I would name it dev_help and alias it to dh.
I think you're worrying about nothing. Install the program as 'the-command-to-do-evertyhing-and-if-you-dont-make-your-own-alias-for-it-you-should'. I don't think that will be too long for any modern filesystems, but you might need to shorten it to 'tctdeaiydmyoafiys'. See what common aliases are used, and then change the program's name to that. In other words: don't decide, let natural selection decide for you. If you are working with a team of < 10, this should not even remotely cause any problems.
Call it devtool alias to dt
Custom tools like that I like to start with the prefix 'jj-'. I can type (with big index-finger power) 'jj ' and see all my personal commands. Also, they group together in alphabetical lists. 'J' is not a very common character for built-inc commands, but you can pick your own.
Since you want two characters, you can use just 'zz', or something starting with 'z'.
Are you sure you want to put all your functionality in one command? That might be simultaneously over-constraining and over-loading the interface a little.
do conf
do build
do install
do publish