Re: "man" command made easy?
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 03:41:01PM -0700, Paul Mackinney wrote:
| D-Man uttered:
| >
| > [I haven't been following most of this thread, but]
| >
| > On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:59:23AM -0700, Paul Mackinney wrote:
| > | Night before last I ran 'find /usr/doc -name "index.html" >foo.txt' and
| > | then spent 2 hours adding links from foo.txt to my local home/start
| >
| > 2 hours!? Wow. Learn vi(m) or some other advanced editor. If you
| > have that foo.txt with each filename on its own line the following
| > will take very little time to create a web page of links out of it.
|
| Vim is indeed my editor of choice. The 2 hours was mostly because I got
| distracted reading & checking out the stuff I found. But my edits
Oh, ok. That's better. Two hours reading docs, not two hours
creating HTML links.
(BTW, thanks guys for those other generation techniques)
| weren't nearly as slick as what you suggest.
|
| Thanks to a conversation at a BAD (Bay Area Debian) meeting last week, I
| was clued in to visual mode. Here's what I did:
| 1. At the first line, type 'v' to enter visual mode.
| 2. Scroll to the last line, type ':'
| 3. Vim starts the command text for you. Append
| s/^/<a href="file:\/\//g <enter>
|
| 4. Repeat the command, this time appending
| s/$/\"> DESCR <\/a>/g
|
| This turned a line like
| /usr/share/doc/apache/manual/mod/index.html
|
| into
| <a href="file:///usr/share/doc/apache/manual/mod/index.html"> DESCR </a>
Yes, visual mode is great when you want to operate on a subset of the
buffer. The '%' at the beginning of my command means use the whole
buffer.
| But your technique for capturing the original line & using it for the
| link description is very cool & will save me much effort for my updates.
Thanks. Actually, I'm not 100% sure that vim supports backreferences
like that (the \1 in the replacement text). I know that Python's and
Perl's regex engines do. I think I've heard/read that vim does do
backreferences.
BTW, I probably spent more time making my sample commands a little
shorter than you spent with your slightly simpler version. Also, the
simpler the command is the more likely it is correct ;-).
-D
Reply to: