could not build a module

--Boundary_(ID_FLZvdG1bthvyf/akMU8Yuw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


Hi,

I am new to perl on Max OS X.I used to use perl on Windows. I just got 
a new Dual G5 last week. I just tried to install the 
RTF::TEXT::Converter
module using the following command:

perl -MCPAN -e 'install RTF::TEXT::Converter'

I got the following error, the file perl.h is not there. The only file 
in the directory is  libperl.dylib. What can I do? I don't want to do 
"please build and install your perl from a fresh perl distribution." if 
possible.

ted zeng
====== error message
   CPAN.pm: Going to build P/PV/PVERD/RTF-Parser-1.07.tar.gz


Error: Unable to locate installed Perl libraries or Perl source code.

It is recommended that you install perl in a standard location before
building extensions. Some precompiled versions of perl do not contain
these header files, so you cannot build extensions. In such a case,
please build and install your perl from a fresh perl distribution. It
usually solves this kind of problem.

(You get this message, because MakeMaker could not find 
"/System/Library/Perl/5.8.1/darwin-thread-multi-2level/CORE/perl.h")
Running make test
   Make had some problems, maybe interrupted? Won't test
Running make install
   Make had some problems, maybe interrupted? Won't install


--Boundary_(ID_FLZvdG1bthvyf/akMU8Yuw)--
0
zeng
2/24/2005 7:46:33 PM
perl.macosx 2309 articles. 0 followers. Follow

57 Replies
716 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 53

On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Ted Zeng wrote:

> Error: Unable to locate installed Perl libraries or Perl source code.

Install Xcode.

sherm--

Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

0
sherm
2/24/2005 7:51:18 PM
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 02:51:18PM -0500, Sherm Pendley wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Ted Zeng wrote:
> 
> >Error: Unable to locate installed Perl libraries or Perl source code.
> 
> Install Xcode.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say "install
the OS X development tools", rather than Xcode, per se?

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - <dha@panix.com> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
Hang on, you're a veggie, and you don't drink Guinness... why do I
bother fancying you again???  - Alex Page
0
dha
2/24/2005 10:23:33 PM
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, David H. Adler wrote:

> Perhaps I'm mistaken, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say "install 
> the OS X development tools", rather than Xcode, per se?

As of OSX 10.3, "Xcode" is the name for the whole suite, in addition to 
the specific XCode IDE.

Maybe it was decided that the 10.0 - 10.2 era  "[Month] [Year] OSX 
Develeoper's Tools" was a clumsy name that had to be retired, and that 
having the same name for two things was acceptably annoying.

*shrug*
 

-- 
Chris Devers
0
cdevers
2/24/2005 10:56:17 PM
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 05:56:17PM -0500, Chris Devers wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, David H. Adler wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps I'm mistaken, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say "install 
> > the OS X development tools", rather than Xcode, per se?
> 
> As of OSX 10.3, "Xcode" is the name for the whole suite, in addition to 
> the specific XCode IDE.

I missed that memo. Thanks for the clarification. Carry on. :-)

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - <dha@panix.com> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
Oh, the irony.
                    - Abigail
0
dha
2/25/2005 2:06:51 AM
Thanks.

I will install the Xcode and see how it goes.

ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sherm Pendley [mailto:sherm@dot-app.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:51 AM
> To: Ted Zeng
> Cc: macosx@perl.org
> Subject: Re: could not build a module
> 
> On Feb 24, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Ted Zeng wrote:
> 
> > Error: Unable to locate installed Perl libraries or Perl source
code.
> 
> Install Xcode.
> 
> sherm--
> 
> Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
> Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

0
zeng
2/25/2005 6:43:32 PM
> I will install the Xcode and see how it goes.

You know where to find it?

0
joel_rees
2/26/2005 10:41:29 AM
Quoting Joel Rees <joel_rees@sannet.ne.jp>:

> 
> > I will install the Xcode and see how it goes.
> 
> You know where to find it?
> 
> 
You need to become an "Apple Developer connection" Member thet ypu can dowload 
a lot of development tools. 
The Apple web site  for the ADC is 

https://connect.apple.com

Mario Mango Furnari

-- 
Istituto di Cibernetica Eduardo Caianiello
Comprensorio Olivetti, Building 70
Via Campi Flegrei, 34
80078 Pozzuoli
Italy

Tel:  +39.0818675154
Fax:  +39.0818675326
email:mf@cib.na.cnr.it

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

0
mf
2/26/2005 11:29:45 AM
>>> I will install the Xcode and see how it goes.
>>
>> You know where to find it?
>>
>>
> You need to become an "Apple Developer connection" Member thet ypu can 
> dowload
> a lot of development tools.
> The Apple web site  for the ADC is
>
> https://connect.apple.com

And if you don't have broadband, you can almost always find it 
somewhere in the OS install. Of course, it may not be the absolute 
latest, but it will be there.

I was just wondering if Ted knew.

0
joel_rees
2/26/2005 1:31:03 PM
Joel,
Thanks. I did find it and install Xcode.

I managed to install module "RTF::Text::Converter".
But it doesn't work on Eggplant's script files. I even
Opened the script file in Windows XP's Word and then
Saved it. It still hangs. ( I used the example script
Tests.pl that comes with the module.)

Anyone has a good suggestion on a good RTF to Text converter
That works well on Mac?

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Rees [mailto:joel_rees@sannet.ne.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 2:41 AM
> To: macosx@perl.org
> Subject: Re: could not build a module
> 
> 
> > I will install the Xcode and see how it goes.
> 
> You know where to find it?

0
zeng
2/27/2005 1:40:03 AM
On Feb 26, 2005, at 8:40 PM, Ted Zeng wrote:

> Anyone has a good suggestion on a good RTF to Text converter
> That works well on Mac?

Have you tried TextEdit? It comes with the OS, so it doesn't cost 
anything to give it a shot.

Or, were you looking for a batch processing thing, to convert a bunch 
of files?

sherm--

Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

0
sherm
2/27/2005 2:23:45 AM
I need to do batch processing. In fact, I need to grap the text content 
of each file
and process it using Perl.

I just did a search and found the link
http://daringfireball.net/2003/04/rtf_to_plain_text_translator

which tells me  to use inside the FileMerge folder
convertRichTextToAscii

to do the conversion. It works.
I will need to hook it up with perl to do my job.

ted

n Feb 26, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote:

> On Feb 26, 2005, at 8:40 PM, Ted Zeng wrote:
>
>> Anyone has a good suggestion on a good RTF to Text converter
>> That works well on Mac?
>
> Have you tried TextEdit? It comes with the OS, so it doesn't cost 
> anything to give it a shot.
>
> Or, were you looking for a batch processing thing, to convert a bunch 
> of files?
>
> sherm--

0
zeng
2/27/2005 3:03:17 AM
On Feb 26, 2005, at 10:03 PM, Ted Zeng wrote:

> I need to do batch processing. In fact, I need to grap the text 
> content of each file
> and process it using Perl.

I figured "rtf2txt" would be a fairly obvious name, so on a hunch I 
googled for it. Turns out to be a good hunch. :-)

<http://www.bluem.net/downloads/rtf2txt_en/>

sherm--

Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

0
sherm
2/27/2005 4:27:34 AM
Hi,
Thanks for the help here. I am almost finishing my first tool on OS X.

I am using TextEdit as the editor. I sometime use Pico, but I am still
not comfortable with Unix editor. I know there must be some good
editors for Perl. Do you have any recommendation?

ted zeng
Adobe Systems

0
zeng
3/2/2005 5:38:57 PM
If you want to stay with something free, I'd suggest TextWrangler from 
Bare Bones:

http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/index.shtml

It has good syntax coloring, and integrates well with the command-line 
perl - you can set a keyboard shortcut to run scripts & check their 
syntax, and you can write filters and other scripts in perl.  Pretty 
sweet for a free product.

Ian

On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Ted Zeng wrote:

> Hi,
> Thanks for the help here. I am almost finishing my first tool on OS X.
>
> I am using TextEdit as the editor. I sometime use Pico, but I am still
> not comfortable with Unix editor. I know there must be some good
> editors for Perl. Do you have any recommendation?
>
> ted zeng
> Adobe Systems

0
ian
3/2/2005 5:50:01 PM
On 02/03/2005 @ 17:38 GMT, Ted Zeng, zeng@adobe.com, wrote:

>I am using TextEdit as the editor. I sometime use Pico, but I am still
>not comfortable with Unix editor. I know there must be some good
>editors for Perl. Do you have any recommendation?

BBEdit <http://www.barebones.com> and Affrus <http://www.latenightsw.com> s=
pring to mind.

Both cost money but are well worth it.

Cheers,

Regards,

    Phil.
0
phildobbin
3/2/2005 6:13:46 PM
Ted Zeng wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for the help here. I am almost finishing my first tool on OS X.
> 
> I am using TextEdit as the editor. I sometime use Pico, but I am still
> not comfortable with Unix editor. I know there must be some good
> editors for Perl. Do you have any recommendation?
> 
> ted zeng
> Adobe Systems
> 
> 

Vim. Steep learning curve, learn once, use forever, anywhere.

http://danconia.org
0
wiggins
3/2/2005 6:43:32 PM
On Wed, March 2, 2005 12:43 pm, Wiggins d'Anconia said:
> Ted Zeng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for the help here. I am almost finishing my first tool on OS X.

> Vim. Steep learning curve, learn once, use forever, anywhere.
>
> http://danconia.org
>

I'm a vim and BBEdit user. If you're interested in a collaborative
environment, you can check out SubEthaEdit at
http://www.codingmonkeys.de/subethaedit/

-- 
Mike Schienle


0
mgs
3/2/2005 6:47:05 PM
There is a double clickable version of emacs available. There is a link 
to it at Apple's sight.


Mar 2, 2005 kl. 6:38 PM skrev Ted Zeng:

> Hi,
> Thanks for the help here. I am almost finishing my first tool on OS X.
>
> I am using TextEdit as the editor. I sometime use Pico, but I am still
> not comfortable with Unix editor. I know there must be some good
> editors for Perl. Do you have any recommendation?
>
> ted zeng
> Adobe Systems
>
>
"Home is not where you are born, but where your heart finds peace" -
Tommy Nordgren, "The dying old crone"

0
tommy
3/2/2005 9:28:00 PM
On 02/03/2005 @ 21:28 GMT, Tommy Nordgren, tommy.nordgren@chello.se, wrote:

>There is a double clickable version of emacs available. There is a link=20
>to it at Apple's sight.

I'm thinking that if he's not comfortable with pico maybe emacs is not the =
best idea...

Cheers,

Regards,

    Phil.
0
phildobbin
3/2/2005 9:45:26 PM
At 9:45 pm +0000 2/3/05, Phil Dobbin wrote:

>I'm thinking that if he's not comfortable with pico maybe emacs is 
>not the best idea...

I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone 
would use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. 
I can imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii and 
either a nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but 
maybe that's because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)

JD

0
JD
3/2/2005 10:15:12 PM
John Delacour wrote:
> At 9:45 pm +0000 2/3/05, Phil Dobbin wrote:
> 
>> I'm thinking that if he's not comfortable with pico maybe emacs is not 
>> the best idea...
> 
> 
> I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone would 
> use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. I can 
> imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii and either a 
> nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but maybe that's 
> because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)
> 
> JD
> 
> 

They aren't free (well BBedit and Affrus), they aren't cross platform 
(why learn a different editor for each platform), and they require lots 
of clicky.

I have never logged into a system where I couldn't use vi. (well maybe a 
windows box, but it didn't take long to install gvim or cygwin.)

http://danconia.org
0
wiggins
3/2/2005 10:25:27 PM
Wiggins d'Anconia wrote:
> John Delacour wrote:
> 
>> At 9:45 pm +0000 2/3/05, Phil Dobbin wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking that if he's not comfortable with pico maybe emacs is 
>>> not the best idea...
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone 
>> would use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. 
>> I can imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii and 
>> either a nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but 
>> maybe that's because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)
>>
>> JD
>>
>>
> 
> They aren't free (well BBedit and Affrus), they aren't cross platform 
> (why learn a different editor for each platform), and they require lots 
> of clicky.
> 
> I have never logged into a system where I couldn't use vi. (well maybe a 
> windows box, but it didn't take long to install gvim or cygwin.)
> 
> http://danconia.org
> 
> 

p.s. forgot one, they require some sort of "X" like display, have you 
ever edited a text file on a remote machine with no remote display? or a 
remote display over a modem? no thanks....

http://danconia.org
0
wiggins
3/2/2005 10:27:11 PM
On 02/03/2005 @ 22:25 GMT, Wiggins d'Anconia, wiggins@danconia.org, wrote:

>John Delacour wrote:

>> I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone=20
>>would=20
>> use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. I can=20
>> imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii and either a=20
>> nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but maybe that's=
=20
>> because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)

>They aren't free (well BBedit and Affrus), they aren't cross platform=20
>(why learn a different editor for each platform), and they require lots=20
>of clicky.
>
>I have never logged into a system where I couldn't use vi. (well maybe a=
=20
>windows box, but it didn't take long to install gvim or cygwin.)

In the case in point though he's using OS X so why not use the best tools f=
or the platform you're on? If one day he gets stuck on Atari he'll have to =
learn vim/emacs/whatever.

No point suffering til then :-)

Cheers,

Regards,

    Phil.
--
Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day
Show a man grep and you'll never see him again
0
phildobbin
3/2/2005 10:29:12 PM
John Delacour wrote:
> At 9:45 pm +0000 2/3/05, Phil Dobbin wrote:
>> I'm thinking that if he's not comfortable with pico maybe emacs is not 
>> the best idea...
> I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone would 
> use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. I can 
> imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii

You imagine wrong.  There's a reason that emacs and vi have been popular 
for so many years, and since long before OS X was even thought of.

 >                                                          and either a
> nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but maybe that's 
> because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)

If you put non-ASCII in your code you're doing something wrong. 
Language-specific stuff - including English - belongs in a seperate 
resource file if you care about internationalisation.

-- 
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

          Nuke a disabled unborn gay baby whale for JESUS!
0
david
3/2/2005 10:39:15 PM
On 02/03/2005 @ 22:39 GMT, David Cantrell, david@cantrell.org.uk, wrote:

>John Delacour wrote:

>> I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone=20
>>would=20
>> use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. I can=20
>> imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii
>
>You imagine wrong.  There's a reason that emacs and vi have been popular=
=20
>for so many years, and since long before OS X was even thought of.

[...]

I sense the perennial 'when I was a lad and that's all we had' hypothesis c=
oming up but was this the reason for their popularity?

If so it's kind of lame seeing as we know have alternatives that work very =
well and more intuitively on their given platform (i.e. OS X)

Cheers,

Regards,

    Phil.
0
phildobbin
3/2/2005 10:52:32 PM
Phil Dobbin wrote:
> On 02/03/2005 @ 22:39 GMT, David Cantrell, david@cantrell.org.uk, wrote:
>>John Delacour wrote:
>>>I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone 
>>>would 
>>>use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. I can 
>>>imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii
>>
>>You imagine wrong.  There's a reason that emacs and vi have been popular 
>>for so many years, and since long before OS X was even thought of.
> I sense the perennial 'when I was a lad and that's all we had' hypothesis
 > coming up but was this the reason for their popularity?

The reasons that they were popular and still are have already been 
listed.  All to do with utility and nothing to do with the fact that I 
used to have to work 25 hours a day down pit for nowt but a bag of 
gravel AND I WAS GRATEFUL FOR WHAT I GOT.

> If so it's kind of lame seeing as we know have alternatives that work
 > very well and more intuitively on their given platform (i.e. OS X)

OS X is only one of many platforms I use.  This is the case for most 
programmers whose opinions I respect.  I want my most important tool, 
the one in which I write the code that earns me the money I need for 
buying whisky, to work consistently everywhere that I work (OS X, 
Linux/x86, Linux/Sparc, Solaris, Unicos, Irix, OpenBSD).  Until 
TextWrangler, BBEdit, and Affrus work consistently in all those places - 
and yes, that includes over slow network connections - they are unworthy 
of consideration.

But if you want to limit yourself to just one platform, you go right ahead.

-- 
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

    It doesn't matter to me if someone else's computer is faster because
    I know my system could smash theirs flat if it fell over on it.
         -- (with apologies to Brian Chase)
0
david
3/2/2005 11:10:49 PM
Hi, all,

Thanks for all the replies. They are all very useful to me.

I have downloaded TextWrangler and used it for a short while. It 
satisfies all my need right now.
In fact, I feel it is better than the shareware I used to use for 
editing Perl scripts on Windows.
TextWrangler is free from Bare Bone Software, which also sells BBEdit.

I have learnt vi before. Than I used MPW shell. I never get really 
comfortable with vi.
But I can still edit a file when it is needed on a UNIX. But it is 
clumsy for me.

Some friends have recommended vim and emacs to me. And one of the 
reasons is he can
remotely edit a text file very easily. Maybe one day I will learn emacs 
or vim
as a challenge. One more thing that I feel uncomfortable with is 
X-window stuff.

ted zeng
Adobe Systems

0
zeng
3/2/2005 11:20:58 PM
On 02/03/2005 @ 23:10 GMT, David Cantrell, david@cantrell.org.uk, wrote:

>Phil Dobbin wrote:

[...]

>> If so it's kind of lame seeing as we know have alternatives that work
> > very well and more intuitively on their given platform (i.e. OS X)
>
>OS X is only one of many platforms I use.  This is the case for most=20
>programmers whose opinions I respect.  I want my most important tool,=20
>the one in which I write the code that earns me the money I need for=20
>buying whisky, to work consistently everywhere that I work (OS X,=20
>Linux/x86, Linux/Sparc, Solaris, Unicos, Irix, OpenBSD).  Until=20
>TextWrangler, BBEdit, and Affrus work consistently in all those places -=
=20
>and yes, that includes over slow network connections - they are unworthy=
=20
>of consideration.
>
>But if you want to limit yourself to just one platform, you go right=20
>ahead.

As with most editor wars this is going off on a tangent. This one platform =
is OS X with which this list concerns itself and the original questioner wa=
s expressing doubts about using command line editors and therefore asked ab=
out alternative GUI ones. Whether or not they are worthy of your considerat=
ion because they don't work on Linux/x86, Linux/Sparc, Solaris, Unicos, Iri=
x, OpenBSD or Playstation is neither here or there in this context although=
 I very much enjoyed hearing your opinion.

Also I *can* use vim...

Cheers,

Regards,

    Phil.
0
phildobbin
3/2/2005 11:29:23 PM
At 10:39 pm +0000 2/3/05, David Cantrell wrote:

>If you put non-ASCII in your code you're doing something wrong. 
>Language-specific stuff - including English - belongs in a seperate 
>resource file if you care about internationalisation.

Uhm, the Perl I use uses UTF-8 by default.  UTF-8 and Unicode have 
nothing at all to do with language, whatever you mean by that; and if 
I'm using a text editor that allows me to include Chinese and Ancient 
Greek in a perl script, as I do, and have them displayed as such for 
my convenience I am doing nothing wrong at all, since the script is 
all in UTF-8.  I think you are talking of a different century.

JD

0
JD
3/2/2005 11:45:37 PM
It also has a stationary feature, which enables you to create templates for
various Perl files you may create.  I have one for object oriented package
files, and one for regular Perl scripts - both complete with POD stuff.

Very nice.

Cheers,

John

> From: Ian Ragsdale <ian@SKYLIST.net>
> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:50:01 -0600
> To: OSX Group Perl <macosx@perl.org>
> Subject: Re: What Perl editor do you recommend?
> 
> If you want to stay with something free, I'd suggest TextWrangler from
> Bare Bones:
> 
> http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/index.shtml
> 
> It has good syntax coloring, and integrates well with the command-line
> perl - you can set a keyboard shortcut to run scripts & check their
> syntax, and you can write filters and other scripts in perl.  Pretty
> sweet for a free product.
> 
> Ian
> 
> On Mar 2, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Ted Zeng wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for the help here. I am almost finishing my first tool on OS X.
>> 
>> I am using TextEdit as the editor. I sometime use Pico, but I am still
>> not comfortable with Unix editor. I know there must be some good
>> editors for Perl. Do you have any recommendation?
>> 
>> ted zeng
>> Adobe Systems
> 


0
john
3/2/2005 11:56:52 PM
At 15:20 -0800 3/2/05, Ted Zeng wrote:
>Then I used MPW shell.

If you liked the MPW shell you should purchase the full BBEdit package. Their worksheets are the closest thing you can get, on OS neXt, to MPW with executable shell commands from within the worksheet.  Two differences are frustrating:  You can't redirect output to another open worksheet the way MPW did and environment variables set from one worksheet will not be recognized in another. But it beats running MPW in classic mode.

-- 

Applescript syntax is like English spelling:
Roughly, but not thoroughly, thought through.
0
douglist
3/3/2005 12:00:13 AM
John Delacour wrote:
> At 10:39 pm +0000 2/3/05, David Cantrell wrote:
>> If you put non-ASCII in your code you're doing something wrong. 
>> Language-specific stuff - including English - belongs in a seperate 
>> resource file if you care about internationalisation.
> Uhm, the Perl I use uses UTF-8 by default.  UTF-8 and Unicode have 
> nothing at all to do with language, whatever you mean by that;

Fair point - I don't believe any language uses the SNOWMAN character 
that some moron thought should exist in a character set.

 >                                                                and if
> I'm using a text editor that allows me to include Chinese and Ancient 
> Greek in a perl script, as I do, and have them displayed as such for my 
> convenience I am doing nothing wrong at all, since the script is all in 
> UTF-8.  I think you are talking of a different century.

If it's for your convenience, that's fine.  If you want to contribute 
your code to someone elses project, or you want others to work with you 
on your project, then insisting that everyone else use your choice of 
encoding, which may not render at all on their hardware even if they 
were to jump through the appropriate settings hoops, is just plain rude. 
  You also open yourself up to confusion between o and ο - on which 
subject, see recent security advisories.

-- 
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

   emacs: for a brave GNU Word
              -- cdevers, in #london.pm
0
david
3/3/2005 12:02:12 AM
It seems to me, that vi and vim are very similiar.  I actually thought 
they
were the same.  What is the difference?

Joe.

On Mar 2, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Ted Zeng wrote:

> Hi, all,
>
> Thanks for all the replies. They are all very useful to me.
>
> I have downloaded TextWrangler and used it for a short while. It 
> satisfies all my need right now.
> In fact, I feel it is better than the shareware I used to use for 
> editing Perl scripts on Windows.
> TextWrangler is free from Bare Bone Software, which also sells BBEdit.
>
> I have learnt vi before. Than I used MPW shell. I never get really 
> comfortable with vi.
> But I can still edit a file when it is needed on a UNIX. But it is 
> clumsy for me.
>
> Some friends have recommended vim and emacs to me. And one of the 
> reasons is he can
> remotely edit a text file very easily. Maybe one day I will learn 
> emacs or vim
> as a challenge. One more thing that I feel uncomfortable with is 
> X-window stuff.
>
> ted zeng
> Adobe Systems
>

0
jalotta
3/3/2005 12:28:46 AM
At 12:02 am +0000 3/3/05, David Cantrell wrote:

>If it's for your convenience, that's fine.  If you want to 
>contribute your code to someone elses project, or you want others to 
>work with you on your project, then insisting that everyone else use 
>your choice of encoding, which may not render at all on their 
>hardware even if they were to jump through the appropriate settings 
>hoops, is just plain rude.

At least I have never been offensive to an expectant mother whale :-) 
and the encoding I use, without exception, is the default encoding of 
the Perl language, so I have the honour to share my manners with 
Larry Wall and other very nice people a long way from England.

JD

0
JD
3/3/2005 12:54:08 AM
[mangled quotation style revised :-) c.d.]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Joseph Alotta wrote:

> On Mar 2, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Ted Zeng wrote:
> 
> > I have downloaded TextWrangler and used it for a short while. It 
> > satisfies all my need right now. In fact, I feel it is better than 
> > the shareware I used to use for editing Perl scripts on Windows. 
> > TextWrangler is free from Bare Bone Software, which also sells 
> > BBEdit.

TextWrangler seems to be a very good editor, and if you grow out of it, 
BBEdit will be there waiting for you as a superset of TW. 

It's also worth taking a look at SubEthaEdit though, if only for the 
extremely clever & useful collaborative editing feature that allows 
multiple SEE users to work on the same document at the same time. 

The people working on the document can discover each other automatically 
if you're on the same local network, or you can connect to remote users 
over the internet if you have their address. As an example, I've used 
SEE to edit a shared document from home and at work at the same time 
(with help from VNC) or asynchronously (to work on the file at work, 
then pick up where I was when I get home).

This isn't a capbility I'm aware of in any other editor, on any 
platform, and it's pretty much the only thing that would ever make me 
want to switch away from usign Vim as my main text editor. If you're 
collaborating on documents with other OSX users, this can be a great way 
to assist that. At my job, we've got half a dozen OSX users that have 
switched away from BBEdit to SEE just so they can collaborate this way, 
and they've been really happy with for the past few months.

> It seems to me, that vi and vim are very similiar.  I actually thought 
> they were the same.  What is the difference?

Vi was a very early full-screen UNIX editor going back to the 70s or so. 
Vi today is basically the same program it wass 20 or more years ago.

Vim is "Vi IMproved", a completely new program that both implements all 
the functionality of classic Vi while extending it with lots of features 
that came along later with editors like Emacs: multiple levels of undo, 
command history in the ex subshell, etc. Plus, it includes an optional 
graphical mode that runs natively on X11, Windows, and OSX; it doesn't 
make Vim as simple to use as TextWrangler / BBEdit / SubEthaEdit / etc, 
but it's a lot more friendly than the original Vi ever was...
 

-- 
Chris Devers
0
cdevers
3/3/2005 1:21:09 AM
>Some friends have recommended vim and emacs to me. And one of the 
>reasons is he can remotely edit a text file very easily.

This has been mentioned a few times, but of course 
TextWrangler/BBEdit both support Edit via FTP/SFTP, so presuming you 
are SSHing to your target machine, then you can easily edit remote 
files with TextWrangler/BBEdit.

For example, on the target machine while logged in via ssh, you can do this:

ssh peter@mymac.com bbedit sftp://peter@remotehost.com/perl/Peter/Tools.pm

I'll leave as an exercise to the perl hacker as to how to have to set 
up[ an alias and script to do this by typing

rbbedit Tools.pm

Enjoy,
    Peter.

-- 
<http://www.stairways.com/>  <http://download.stairways.com/>
0
peter
3/3/2005 1:31:16 AM
"vim" is "vi improved", a rewritten version of the original vi editor 
written many many years ago.

http://www.vim.org/about.php

The one real advantage to vi-type editors compared to other editors is 
that they enable you to edit without taking your hands off the home 
keys. They are, however, extremely difficult to learn. I have never 
recommended vi to anyone who wanted to learn a new editor from scratch. 
But for those of us who did learn vi back in ancient days and are 
comfortable with it, vim does have that advantage, and also advanced 
(to me) features like syntax coloring.

The only integrated development environment I ever used was the one in 
QuickBASIC, but even that was extremely useful. I haven't tried Affrus 
yet, but I am tempted. Even if I do have to use cursor keys.

I think it's probably a mistake to base a choice of tool on its 
availability in an environment you're not using. Perl is not just for 
professional programmers who expect to learn lots of different 
operating systems and work on them all. If someday one finds oneself 
programming seriously in some way on another system, one can learn the 
tools that are appropriate then - tools which may not even exist today.

On Mar 2, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Joseph Alotta wrote:

> It seems to me, that vi and vim are very similiar.  I actually thought 
> they
> were the same.  What is the difference?
-- 
Aaron Priven, aaron@priven,com, http://www.priven.com/aaron

0
aaron
3/3/2005 1:33:03 AM
I would urge all of you that have spoken so far to try out jEdit 
(http://jedit.org).
>
>

0
ghost
3/3/2005 1:40:27 AM
On 2005.3.3, at 07:15 AM, John Delacour wrote:

> At 9:45 pm +0000 2/3/05, Phil Dobbin wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking that if he's not comfortable with pico maybe emacs is 
>> not the best idea...
>
> I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone 
> would use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. 
> I can imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii and 
> either a nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but 
> maybe that's because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)

Two points, or maybe three --

One, vim can be customized to handle mult-byte characters. Emacs, can, 
too, from what I hear. I'm personally not satisfied with the results, 
but it does "work", even if it's rather clumsy.

I have the impression that pico can also be customized, since there are 
a number of Japanese people who use it.

The other, vi is, as has been mentioned, almost always there, and it's 
much easier to use than ed.

Also, vi inherits a lot of powerful macro processing capabilities from 
ex/ed that are somewhat arcane, but still useable. If you're 
comfortable with vi and can keep track of the arcane syntax, it pretty 
much lets you do everything you can do in mpw.

I personally use whatever's handy, but when I edit the files under 
/etc, I usually don't really want to waste the time fiddling with 
permissions and such. And if I have to type the file path in by hand 
anyway, I might as well open up a terminal and use vi.

0
joel_rees
3/3/2005 2:02:38 AM
At 5:33 pm -0800 2/3/05, Aaron Priven wrote:

>The one real advantage to vi-type editors compared to other editors 
>is that they enable you to edit without taking your hands off the 
>home keys.

Both TextWrangler and BBEdit, which for Perl purposes are virtually 
identical (it's the html stuff that's missing in TW) are configurable 
to the nth degree as regards keystrokes and can be customised, I am 
sure, to emulate the behaviour of vim or whatever as regards 
keystrokes.  Any key combination can be used to perform any operation 
within the document, the application or beyond.  Pods can be 
displayed for selected terms of module names at a single keystroke 
etc. etc.  The most involved sequences of tasks can be performed with 
a single keystroke. In a short time a user can set up the application 
to respond as he chooses to commands that he chooses, which might be 
vim-like or might not.

JD

0
JD
3/3/2005 2:05:23 AM
Apologies for fanning the fires, but this hits kind of close to home ...

On 2005.3.3, at 07:39 AM, David Cantrell wrote:

> [...]
> >                                                          and either a
>> nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but maybe 
>> that's because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)
>
> If you put non-ASCII in your code you're doing something wrong. 
> Language-specific stuff - including English - belongs in a seperate 
> resource file if you care about internationalisation.

Resources have to be edited with something, and it is often useful to 
be able to use REs on them.

Also, making systems and apps universal is trying to solve a problem 
that shouldn't be solved, even if the tools are useful. Even if the 
core engines of, say, a medical system can be universal, there are huge 
pieces of functionality that should _not_ be so. If you try to run a 
Japanese clinic the way an American hospital or clinic is run, you're 
not going to help very many patients. Likely to scare a number of them, 
in fact.

The guys that build the local stuff should work in their own language 
as much as possible, and that includes not just comments, but, if 
possible, identifiers, syntax, and grammar. Otherwise, they tend less 
to understand what they are doing and more to think it's all just a 
mathematical game. And they tend not to really understand re-factoring 
if it doesn't work on symbols in their own language.

Right now, comments are about all that can be dependably worked with in 
non-Latin characters, but even those, it's useful to have a full and 
accessible set of RE-type tools to work with.

0
joel_rees
3/3/2005 2:18:13 AM
In article <p06200709be4c16dd2e51@[203.8.112.3]>,
 peter@stairways.com.au (Peter N Lewis) wrote:

> >Some friends have recommended vim and emacs to me. And one of the 
> >reasons is he can remotely edit a text file very easily.
> 
> This has been mentioned a few times, but of course 
> TextWrangler/BBEdit both support Edit via FTP/SFTP, so presuming you 
> are SSHing to your target machine, then you can easily edit remote 
> files with TextWrangler/BBEdit.
> 
> For example, on the target machine while logged in via ssh, you can do this:
> 
> ssh peter@mymac.com bbedit sftp://peter@remotehost.com/perl/Peter/Tools.pm

I should here plug cenotaph.  It's something Matthias Neeracher wrote, and 
then I ported it to Mac OS X.

It's a client-server.  The server, cenotaph, runs on your local Mac, and the 
client, ceno, runs on the remote boxes you're using as your editor.  So you 
type:

   ceno somefile

on the remote box, and somefile pops up on your local box, in your editor.  
When you're done editing it, cenotaph sends it back through the open 
connection to the client, where it is then saved.

Any editor works, in theory: cenotaph will execute the editor and wait for 
it to return, so it pretty much requires an editor that runs in your GUI.  
By default, it uses BBEdit (via '/usr/bin/bbedit -w').

It's a useful tool to have, especially when you can't get direct scp/sftp 
access to a machine (such as in my work environment, where I have to go 
through a gateway first to get to any of the other machines, so I either use 
a remote command line editor, or this).

There's no security, because I've never needed it and no one else seems to 
be using this and therefore no one really cares, but in theory if someone 
knew your IP address and that you were running cenotaph, they could open any 
number of files to your editor.  :-)

Anyway, it's on SourceForge.net if you care.

   http://sf.net/projects/pudge/

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pudge@pobox.com    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Technology Group       pudge@ostg.com     http://ostg.com/
0
pudge
3/3/2005 3:10:37 AM
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, John Delacour wrote:

> Both TextWrangler and BBEdit, which for Perl purposes are virtually
> identical (it's the html stuff that's missing in TW) are configurable
> to the nth degree as regards keystrokes and can be customised, I am
> sure, to emulate the behaviour of vim or whatever as regards
> keystrokes.  Any key combination can be used to perform any operation
> within the document, the application or beyond.  Pods can be
> displayed for selected terms of module names at a single keystroke
> etc. etc.  The most involved sequences of tasks can be performed with
> a single keystroke. In a short time a user can set up the application
> to respond as he chooses to commands that he chooses, which might be
> vim-like or might not.

<sigh> I should let this thread die a natural death, but...this post
illustrates the silliness to which editor wars always stray.

First, a response to the "anything vi can do, BBEdit can do better": I
suspect the hardest commands to replicate would be the simplest:  move the
cursor to the next word, line, block, or backwards, move to end of line or
paragraph, etc.  Even things that can be sort of replicated, like a
search-and-replace sequence over the next 10 lines, would require a bunch
of extra tabs to move from dialog field to dialog field, even assuming the
entire search-and-replace dialog can be navigated mouseless (I don't know
or care).  Making the process as quick as vi (assuming a skilled operator
of vi) would likely be impossible.  For you, no doubt BBEdit is quicker,
which explains why you might prefer it.

But, even if you could make BBEdit look like vi, why?  If I love vi so
much, would I buy a commercial program and spend hours (it would take it)
configuring it to look like another program I could have for free and
without the work?

Furthermore, let's say I ssh into some remote box and want to edit some
quick Perl or shell script or config file on the remote box.  I'm back to
using vi.  Yes, in some cases I could run X or VNC or RemoteDesktop or
some other remote GUI tool, but it's often overkill, like hopping in your
SUV and driving twenty feet to your mailbox to check the mail.

I own BBEdit and love it.  For me personally, I prefer editing code with a
mouse-based editor, and I don't feel the need for editor consistency.  But
for some tasks, you can do it in vi before BBEdit could even launch, even
if it were an option.  And I've seen people with greater skills in vi, for
whom it is the best choice in many more situations.

Bottom line:  people have their preferences, and their preferences may
actually make sense (ie be optimal) for their circumstances and usage.
If you are annoyed with your current editor, check out some of the editors
mentioned.   Let's get back to Perl and MacOS X.  <sighing at the futility
of the request>



--
MattLangford


0
langfml
3/3/2005 6:24:27 AM
On 2 Mar 2005, at 22:15, John Delacour wrote:

> At 9:45 pm +0000 2/3/05, Phil Dobbin wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking that if he's not comfortable with pico maybe emacs is 
>> not the best idea...
>
> I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone 
> would use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. 
> I can imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii and 
> either a nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but 
> maybe that's because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)
>
Personally, because I learned Emacs in 1986, so the control keys are 
hard-coded in my brain :-)

0
andy
3/3/2005 9:48:37 AM
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter N Lewis <peter@stairways.com.au> writes:

Peter> This has been mentioned a few times, but of course TextWrangler/BBEdit
Peter> both support Edit via FTP/SFTP, so presuming you are SSHing to your
Peter> target machine, then you can easily edit remote files with
Peter> TextWrangler/BBEdit.

And of course Emacs can do this as well.  For a very long time. :)

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
0
merlyn
3/3/2005 12:57:15 PM
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Ragsdale <ian@SKYLIST.net> writes:

Ian> If you want to stay with something free, I'd suggest TextWrangler from
Ian> Bare Bones:

Ian> http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/index.shtml

Ian> It has good syntax coloring, and integrates well with the command-line
Ian> perl - you can set a keyboard shortcut to run scripts & check their
Ian> syntax, and you can write filters and other scripts in perl.  Pretty
Ian> sweet for a free product.

Again, if you keep pushing "free", I'm going to say "emacs". :)
Emacs has all that.  And more.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
0
merlyn
3/3/2005 1:04:14 PM
Phil Dobbin wrote:
> On 02/03/2005 @ 22:25 GMT, Wiggins d'Anconia, wiggins@danconia.org, wrote:
> 
> 
>>John Delacour wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone 
>>>would 
>>>use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. I can 
>>>imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii and either a 
>>>nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but maybe that's 
>>>because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)
> 
> 
>>They aren't free (well BBedit and Affrus), they aren't cross platform 
>>(why learn a different editor for each platform), and they require lots 
>>of clicky.
>>
>>I have never logged into a system where I couldn't use vi. (well maybe a 
>>windows box, but it didn't take long to install gvim or cygwin.)
> 
> 
> In the case in point though he's using OS X so why not use the best tools for the platform you're on? If one day he gets stuck on Atari he'll have to learn vim/emacs/whatever.
>

Convince me they are the best tools. I gave you two other reasons why 
they aren't as good. On top of the fact that it is cross platform.

> No point suffering til then :-)
> 

I'm not suffering in vim, I would be in those others.

> Cheers,
> 
> Regards,
> 
>     Phil.
> --
> Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day
> Show a man grep and you'll never see him again
> 
> 

Give a man a fish, and he will grill it and drink a beer.
Teach a man to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day long.

http://danconia.org
0
wiggins
3/3/2005 2:39:03 PM
On Mar 3, 2005, at 7:04 AM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

>>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Ragsdale <ian@SKYLIST.net> writes:
>
> Ian> If you want to stay with something free, I'd suggest TextWrangler 
> from
> Ian> Bare Bones:
>
> Ian> http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/index.shtml
>
> Ian> It has good syntax coloring, and integrates well with the 
> command-line
> Ian> perl - you can set a keyboard shortcut to run scripts & check 
> their
> Ian> syntax, and you can write filters and other scripts in perl.  
> Pretty
> Ian> sweet for a free product.
>
> Again, if you keep pushing "free", I'm going to say "emacs". :)
> Emacs has all that.  And more.

"Keep" pushing free?  I was the first response! :)  I like vi better 
than emacs personally, but mainly cause I know it a lot better.  For 
someone on OS X, that wishes to use a GUI (which was my assumption), 
would you really suggest they spend the time learning emacs or vi?  My 
guess is that most people who suggest such things don't realize how 
long they spent learning how to be productive in it.  I'd guess that 
anybody who learned vi or emacs after 2000 wouldn't suggest it.  I 
personally learned it in '94 and still don't feel that productive in 
it.

Ian

0
ian
3/3/2005 4:14:37 PM
The Ghost wrote:
> I would urge all of you that have spoken so far to try out jEdit 
> (http://jedit.org).
> 

What kind of geek would I be if I ignored an editor thread? ;)

I also like jEdit, here are a few of the reasons:

* Open-source (free as in speech)
* Lots of nice plugins
* Very customizable
* Multi-platform (Java-based)
* Active & responsive developers

Out of the box many people are not wowed, but if you look under the 
hood, and really customized it to your needs, it can do a whole heck of 
a lot. Like many open-source apps, it may require an investment of time 
to get what you are after, but for me it was well worth it.

Pete

0
pete
3/3/2005 4:26:23 PM
Mostly just because no one else mentioned it, I rather like to use Mahon's
"ee" or "aee". Almost no learning curve but much superior to pico, IMHO. If
you must use a GUI version, and can tolerate X-windows, there's even an
"xee". I believe FreeBSD includes it as part of a nominal install. Rather wish
that OS-X did too.
-- 

Walter M. Pawley <walt@wump.org>
Wump Research & Company
676 River Bend Road, Roseburg, OR 97470
         541-672-8975
0
walt
3/3/2005 8:11:28 PM


On Mar 02, 2005, at 17:15, John Delacour wrote:

> At 9:45 pm +0000 2/3/05, Phil Dobbin wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking that if he's not comfortable with pico maybe emacs is 
>> not the best idea...
>
> I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone 
> would use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. 
> I can imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii and 
> either a nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but 
> maybe that's because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)
>
>

Easy.  You're ssh'ed into a box.  Emacs makes the ONLY sense.  (OK I 
suppose you could use pico or that one that starts with the letter 
after U.
--
Lou Moran
ellem52@mac.com
http://ellem.is-a-geek.org:5280/
http://homepage.mac.com/ellem52/

0
admn5280
3/4/2005 2:45:24 AM
I think there is a version of TSO that runs in unix, and on Windoze.

This is for the very strong only.


Joe.


On Mar 3, 2005, at 8:45 PM, Charlie Root wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mar 02, 2005, at 17:15, John Delacour wrote:
>
>> At 9:45 pm +0000 2/3/05, Phil Dobbin wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking that if he's not comfortable with pico maybe emacs is 
>>> not the best idea...
>>
>> I'd love to hear a convincing explanation from someone why anyone 
>> would use such tools in preference to TextWrangler, BBEdit or Affrus. 
>> I can imagine they'd make it a chore to write code in us-ascii and 
>> either a nightmare or an impossibility to deal with non-ascii, but 
>> maybe that's because I'm just an unreformed Mac user :-)
>>
>>
>
> Easy.  You're ssh'ed into a box.  Emacs makes the ONLY sense.  (OK I 
> suppose you could use pico or that one that starts with the letter 
> after U.
> --
> Lou Moran
> ellem52@mac.com
> http://ellem.is-a-geek.org:5280/
> http://homepage.mac.com/ellem52/
>

0
jalotta
3/4/2005 4:36:10 AM
Tired of seeing runaway threads on this topic, I've created a page so 
that next time
this is asked, only one reply is (hopefully) needed:

	Look at the list on www.neilbowers.org (or 
http://www.neilbowers.org/macperleditors.html)

At the moment this is based on a skim of the most recent thread, and 
the relevant pages.
I'll update this if emailed additions (to me please, not the list :-)

Neil

0
neil
3/4/2005 4:22:52 PM
This also just came up on the OS X talk list, and another suggestion 
which is getting good comments is TextMate:

http://macromates.com/

Ian

On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Neil Bowers wrote:

> Tired of seeing runaway threads on this topic, I've created a page so 
> that next time
> this is asked, only one reply is (hopefully) needed:
>
> 	Look at the list on www.neilbowers.org (or 
> http://www.neilbowers.org/macperleditors.html)
>
> At the moment this is based on a skim of the most recent thread, and 
> the relevant pages.
> I'll update this if emailed additions (to me please, not the list :-)
>
> Neil

0
ian
3/4/2005 4:43:59 PM
Being an old Windoze user recently converted to Mac, I wish I could get
UltraEdit running on OSX (without having to use VirtualPC). UltraEdit is a
great tool.

Bruce


On 3/4/05 11:43 AM, "Ian Ragsdale" <ian@SKYLIST.net> wrote:

> This also just came up on the OS X talk list, and another suggestion
> which is getting good comments is TextMate:
> 
> http://macromates.com/
> 
> Ian
> 
> On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Neil Bowers wrote:
> 
>> Tired of seeing runaway threads on this topic, I've created a page so
>> that next time
>> this is asked, only one reply is (hopefully) needed:
>> 
>> Look at the list on www.neilbowers.org (or
>> http://www.neilbowers.org/macperleditors.html)
>> 
>> At the moment this is based on a skim of the most recent thread, and
>> the relevant pages.
>> I'll update this if emailed additions (to me please, not the list :-)
>> 
>> Neil
> 


0
brucepascal
3/4/2005 5:08:30 PM
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Ragsdale <ian@SKYLIST.net> writes:

Ian> "Keep" pushing free?

Sorry, the collective "you". :)

Ian>   I'd guess that
Ian> anybody who learned vi or emacs after 2000 wouldn't suggest it.  I
Ian> personally learned it in '94 and still don't feel that productive in
Ian> it.

What happens if I s/vi or emacs/perl/ to that sentence?

Makes just about as much non-sense.

I spend about half my day typing into an editor.  If it wasn't for all
the power of Emacs, I'd be lost by now.

I suppose if you edit for only 15 minutes a day, you could afford
to learn only as much as a GUI editor will let you do. :)

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
0
merlyn
3/4/2005 10:27:21 PM
On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:48 AM, Andy Holyer wrote:
[..]
> Personally, because I learned Emacs in 1986,
> so the control keys are hard-coded in my brain :-)
[..]

Given that ted, you don't mind me calling you ted,
had asked about coding in perl - and on an OSX box,
then the obvious first choice is BBedit. They have
done a lovely job of being Darwin Aware and Perl Friendly.

When I am not on my darwin box, I use 'vi'.

I will confess that learning emacs to use on 1200 baud
modems was just all the rage in the 80's - but then we
got real networked computers. So basically I 'vi' on
the other boxes only when I can use NFS/SMB to mount
the directory onto my Darwin Box.

And not meaning to pick on you Andy, but of course
one has to, where ever do you hide the extra digits
required to do Emac's in it's Native Mode where one
only needs to do a chord combo of some n-gagillion keys.
Most of the Terran's I have meet have problems with that.

cf:
<http://www.wetware.com/drieux/OldWorld/screeds/LiNox.html>

ciao
drieux

---

Fun is having the CTO decide that we need to shift
to 17" Powerbooks so we can run BBedit for creating code.


0
drieux
3/6/2005 3:10:34 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Installing Module::Build::Tiny from CPAN fails . . . because it requires Module::Build::Tiny!?! WTF?
--047d7beb90922582d704f278b10a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Has anyone else encountered this? I had to dig down deep in my testing lore and run 'prove -v t/simple.t' before I could find the STDERR that revealed this. When I reviewed the files in the Module, sure enough: use Module::Build::Tiny (which unfortunately I don't have and am trying to install). Surely this is a bug? --Marc --047d7beb90922582d704f278b10a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"g...

Fwd: proposal: Module::Build extension, ExtUtils::MakeMaker -> Module::Build transition, improving tools
CCing in makemaker@perl.org. Please reply to this copy so both lists get the mail. ------ Forwarded message ------ From: Steven Schubiger <steven@accognoscere.org> Subject: proposal: Module::Build extension, ExtUtils::MakeMaker -> Module::Build transition, improving tools Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 07:03:03 +0200 (CEST) To: tpf-proposals@perl-foundation.org Reply-To: Steven Schubiger <steven@accognoscere.org> Name Steven P. Schubiger Location Switzerland Email <steven@accognoscere.org> Synopsis Module::Build extension, ExtUtil...

building modules that use Module::Install
--Boundary_(ID_G/GMwV8udaQjdgk5JkAMjA) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT An irritant of long standing has been the fact that many Perl modules on CPAN use Module::Install in their Makefile.PL's but Module::Install has been non-functional on VMS for some time, making the modules that use it impossible to build without rewriting the Makefile.PL or other extreme measures. I finally got to the bottom of the portability problems and submitted a fix at <https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=79858>. There are 67 tickets in that queu...

more Module::Build failures on CPAN modules
I keep getting stuff like: ! perl (5.8.9) is installed, but we need version >= 5.8 ! perl (5.12.3) is installed, but we need version >= 5.8 Does that look familiar? --tom --00151747849e2225f504a316ccc0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com> wrote: > I keep getting stuff like: > > ! perl (5.8.9) is installed, but we need version >= 5.8 > > ! perl (5.12.3) is installed, but we need version >= 5.8 > > Does that look familiar? > Oh ...

Why is Module::Build looking for the module in lib directory?
Here's newbie questons number two - If there's a better FAQ I can read, tell me - I've got the June 2003 Perl Journal articel on MOdule::Install, have read the POD and searched... Just following the instructions in the Module::Build synopsis: =========================================================== lmorris - /tmp/SGlic >cat Build.PL use Module::Build; my $build = new Module::Build ( module_name => 'SGlic', license => 'perl', requires => { perl => '5.6.1', Cr...

Building modules without building man-pages
Hello all. I'd like to build a set of modules without building man-pages. I tried this: perl Makefile.PL MAN3PODS=\{\} && make But that didn't work: Can't use string ("{}") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use at /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.6/ExtUtils/MM_Unix.pm line 503. I'd like to do this to shorten the build time for Krang (http://krang.sf.net). Krang builds its required modules from source but doesn't need man-pages. Any ideas? -sam ...

Building modules without building man-pages #2
Hello all. I'd like to build a set of modules without building man-pages. I tried this: perl Makefile.PL MAN3PODS=\{\} && make But that didn't work: Can't use string ("{}") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use at /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.6/ExtUtils/MM_Unix.pm line 503. I'd like to do this to shorten the build time for Krang (http://krang.sf.net). Krang builds its required modules from source but doesn't need man-pages. Any ideas? -sam On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 02:15:22PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote: > Hello ...

Re: Building modules without building man-pages
--=__PartD5F6E018.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit try: perl Makefile.PL INSTALLMAN1DIR=none INSTALLMAN3DIR=none && make -Ian >>>Sam Tregar <sam@tregar.com> 05/05 1:15 pm >>> Hello all. I'd like to build a set of modules without building man-pages. I tried this: perl Makefile.PL MAN3PODS=\{\} && make But that didn't work: Can't use string ({}) as a HASH ref while strict refs in use at /usr/local/lib/perl5/5.8.6/ExtUtils/MM_Unix.pm li...

VS Builds, and Builds, and Builds
Hello, Has anyone else had this problem?  After a while of developing, and I go to compile, VS takes forever to build and I have to end-task it.  It's definitely after I've been working for a while, then it finally has "had it" and just takes forever to build.  It's annoying as I know its not the machine (2.8 GHZ processor and 1GB RAM).  Has anyone else experienced this problem?  By the way, I do have SP1 installed. Also, after minimizing and switching around screens, when it does this, the building icon in the status bar doesn't show.  And, for more informati...

Module::Build ?
Hi Lot of discussion about Module::Build and ExtUtils::MakeMaker appeared on different mailing lists. Meanwhile, it seems that Module::Build is the next package system (right?). So, my question would be: when will we have an h2xs generating Module::Build configuration files? I think that people will not use this packaging system while they need to know how to create the Build.PL file from memory. Well, at least this is what I think :) Just my 5 cents. Kind regards Alberto > So, my question would be: when will we have an h2xs generating > Module::Build config...

Which Build Module?
Please could you advise what the =93preferred=94 build module(s) are nowadays, when releasing to CPAN? I don=92t have any particular requirements as it=92s a simple module, but I=92m unsure which of Module::Install, Module::Build, ExtUtils::MakeMaker, etc. I should be using. --=20 Best wishes, Dave Cardwell. http://davecardwell.co.uk/ http://cardwellit.com/ I would recommending checking out "Dist::Zilla". On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Dave Cardwell <list+perl-module-authors@davecardwell.co.uk> wrote: > Please could you advise what the =93preferred=9...

Dual-Build Modules (What to do if both Makefile.PL and Build.PL exist)
Hi wise Perl authors: I've been building some Perl packages for Debian. I've noticed in the course of this that dh-make-perl (our preferred script for transforming Perl distributions into Debian packages) prefers Makefile.PL over Build.PL. One problem this has caused is that a Makefile is created which is not removed when 'perl Build clean' is run. Now, Makefile.PL via Module::Build::Compat actually runs Build.PL the first time, so the Makefile expects 'Build' to already exist. The next time the module is built, 'make' is run, which in turn triggers...

module::build
Dave, Since Module::Build is now preferred for DateTime::* it might be nice to add your own article on it the developers section of datetime.perl.org. :) http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/02/12/module1.html Cheers, -J -- ...

module build
Hi, I'm sure everyone else knew this about Module::Build VMS 8.3 perl 5.10-1 Installing module Test::Pod 1.41 Unlike the previous version, 1.40, 1.41 makes use of build rather than mm. Welcome to the 21st century. On VMS, the incantion is perl build.pl @build @build "test" @build "install" and, install does NOT make an entry in perl_root:[lib.VMS_AXP.5_10_1]perllocal.pod But, with the above incantation it did work. And, instead of perllocal.pod, it did write: perl_root:[lib.site_perl.VMS_AXP.auto.Test.Pod].packlist FWIW Car...

Web resources about - could not build a module - perl.macosx

Zvezda (ISS module) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
27,743.8 kilometres per hour (17,239.2 mph) Zvezda ( Russian : Звезда , meaning "star"), DOS-8 , also known as the Zvezda Service Module , is ...

Popular Xposed module GravityBox now supports Android 6.0 Marshmallow
Be sure that whenever the Xposed framework is updated to support a new Android version, the popular module GravityBox is to follow. It has been ...

Ford recalls 300,000 Crown Vics over lighting module
... Mercury , Sedan Ford issued a recall notice for some 300,000 Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis sedans to have the lighting control module ...

Tambara Modules
I came in contact with Tambara modules when working on categorical understanding of lenses. They were first mentioned to me by Edward Kmett, ...

Samsung's first 128 GB DDR4 RAM modules for servers go into production
Samsung has announced that it is starting mass production of the industry’s first "through silicon via" (TSV) 128GB DDR4 memory modules for high-end ...

Solaria Technology To Be Licensed By SunEdison For 400 W Modules
Solaria’s manufacturing technology will be licensed by SunEdison to make its 400-watt solar modules, which are called ZERO WHITE SPACE. So what ...

China makers hike PV module prices
In view of strong demand, China-based PV module makers have hiked quotes by nearly 3% in the China market, according to industry sources.

AT&T Introduces LTE Modules for IoT Devices
Our first Internet of Things story of CES 2016! AT&T announced today that they will make 4G LTE modules available for those looking to get into ...

AT&T's LTE Modules Ease IoT Device Design, Development
DAILY VIDEO: AT&T launches LTE modules for IoT market; HP brings consumer cool to business-class notebook PCs; Acer's premium Windows 10 smartphone ...

Lenovo's Windows Tablet Has a Module For Every Need
Full-fat Windows tablets are taking their sweet time catching on with the general public, but if you’re not pulling the trigger because they ...

Resources last updated: 1/22/2016 2:53:26 AM