Re: replacing two EOL chars by one

Ragnar Hafsta? ([e-mail]) wrote:

 > you are forgetting what -p does
 > ...
 > perl -0 -pi'*~' -e 's@\n\n@\n@g' *.java

Thank you kindly.

--

Now there are a slew of perl driviling morons who
has also participated in answering to no avail. Die!

PS pasted below my sig is some meat about unix. Unix morons please
slurp and spruce it up and place it on wikipedia.org or something.

 Xah
 [e-mail]
 http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html



From: 	  [e-mail]
Subject: 	unix inanity: shell env syntax
Date: 	June 7, 2002 12:00:29 AM PDT
To: 	  [e-mail]

Unix Syntatical and Semantical Stupidity Exposition.
(this is one of the many technical expositions of unix stupidity)

(this is currently unpolished, but the meat is there. Input welcome.)
------------
arguments are given with a dash prefix.
e.g.
ls -a -l

order (usually) does not matter. So,
ls -a -l
is the same as
ls -l -a

but arguments can be combined

e.g.

ls -al
means the same thing as
ls -a -l

However, some option consists of more than one character.
e.g.,

perl -version
perl -help

therefore, the meaning of an option string "-ab" is ad hoc dependent
on the program. It can be "-a -b" or just an option named "ab".

Then, sometimes there are two versions of the same optional argument.
e.g.

perl -help
perl -h

perl -version
perl -v

this equivalence is ad hoc.

Different program will disagree on common options. For example, to get
the version, here are common varieties

-v
-V
-version

sometimes v/V stands for "verbose mode", i.e. to output more detail.

Sometimes, if an option is given more than once, then it specifies a
degree of that option. For example, some command accept the -v for
"verbose", meaning that it will output more detail. Sometimes there
are few levels of detail. The number of times an option is specifies
determines the level of detail.
e.g. on Solaris 8,

/usr/ucb/ps -w
/usr/ucb/ps -w -w

thus, meaning of repeated option may have special meaning depending on
the program.

oftentimes some options automatically turn on or supress a bunch of
others. e.g.
Solaris 8, /usr/bin/ls -f

--
when a named optional parameter is of a boolean type, that is a toggle
of yes/no, true/false, exist/nonexist, then it is often times that
instead of taking a boolean value, their sole existance or
non-existance defines their value.

toggle options are sometimes represented by one option name for yes,
while another option name for no, and when both are present, the
behavior is program dependent.
--

toggle option are represented by different option names
--

for named options, their syntax is slack but behavior is usually
dependent on the program.
i.e. not all of the following works for every program
command -o="myvalue"
command -omyvalue
comand -o myvalue

--

often one option may have many synonyms...

--
an example of a better design... (Mathematica, Scheme, Dylan, Python,
Ruby... there's quite a lot elegance and practicality yet distinct
designs and purposes and styles ...)

(recall that unix does not have a bad design to begin with; it's a
donkey shit pile from the beginning and continuation. Again, unix is
not simply technically incompetent. If that, then that's easy to
improve, and i don't have a problem with, since there are things in
one way or another considered horrendous by today's standard like
COBOL or FORTRAN or DOS etc. But, unix is a brain-washing idiot-making
machine, churning out piles and piles of religiously idiotic and
pigheaded keyboard punchers. For EVERY aspects of good engineering
methodology improvement or language design progress opportunity,
unixers will unanimously turn it down.

inevitably someone will ask me what's my point. My point in my series
of unix-showcasing articles has always been clear for those who
studies it: Unix is a crime that caused society inordinate harm, and i
want unix geeks to wakeup and realize it.

 Xah
 [e-mail]
 http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html




From: 	  [e-mail]
Subject: 	Re: mail handling/conversion between OSes/apps
Date: 	May 12, 2002 8:41:58 PM PDT
Cc: 	  [e-mail]

....

Yes, unix have this beautiful philosophy. The philosophy is functional
programing.

for example, define

power(x) := x*x

so

power(3) returns 9.

here 'power' is a function that takes 2 arguments. First parameter
specifies the number to be raised to power, the second the number of
times to multiply itself.

functions can be nested,

f(g(h(x)))

or composed

compose(f,g,h)(x)

here the 'compose' itself is a function, which take other functions as
arguments, and the output of compose is a new function that is
equivalent to nesting f g h.

nesting does not necessarily involved nested syntax. Here's a post fix
notation in Mathematica for example:

x /. h /. g /. h

or prefix notation.

f @ g @ h @ x

or in lisp

(f (g (h x)))
--

the principle is that everything is either a function definition or
function application, and function's behavior is strictly determined
by its argument.

Apple around 1997 or so have this OpenDoc technology, which is similar
idea applied more broadly across OS. That is, instead of one
monolithic browser or big image editors or other software, but have
lots of small tools or components that each does one specific thing
and all can call each other or embedded in  an application framework
as services or the like. For example, in an email apps, you can use
BBEdit to write you email, use Microsoft's spell checker, use XYZ
brand of recorder to record a message, without having to open many
applications or use the Finder the way we would do today. This
multiplies flexibility. (OpenDoc was killed when Steve Jobs become the
iCEO around 1998 and did some serious house-keeping, against the
ghastly anger of Mac developers and fanatics, I'm sure many of you
remember this piece of history.)

The unix pipe syntax |, is a post-fix notation for nesting. e.g.

ps auwwx | awk '{print $2}' | sort -n | xargs echo

in conventional syntax it might look like this:
xargs(  echo, sort(n, awk('print $2', ps(auwwx)))  )

So when you use "pipe" to string many commands in unix, you are doing
supreme functional programing. That's why it is so flexible and
useful, because each component or function does one thing, and you can
combine them in myriad of ways. However, this beautiful functional
programing idea, when it is implemented by the unix heads, becomes a
fucking mess. Nothing works and nothing works right.

I don't feel like writing a comprehensive exposition on this at the
moment. Here's a quick summary:

* fantastically stupid syntax.

* inconsistencies everywhere. everywhere.

* fucking stupid global variables reliance called environment
variables, which fuck up the whole functional programing paradigm.

* implicit stuff everywhere.

* totally incompetent commands and their parameters. (promiscuously
non-orthogonal, and missing things, and fucked up in just more ways
than one can possibly imagine. there are one million way to do one
thing, and none are correct, and much simple needs CANNOT be done!
(that's why there are gazillion shells each smart-ass improving upon
the other, and that's why Perl is born too! But asinine Larry Wall
don't know shit but smugly created another complexity that don't do
much.))

maybe some other day when i'm pissed, i'll write a better exposition
on this issue. I've been wanting to write a final-say essay on this
for long. Don't feel like it now.

 Xah
 [e-mail]
 http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html