js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> While I would brefer that FSF would move towards the standard 'man'
> format which is part of the POSIX standard, the problem is that [...]

Well, I'd prefer they would actually use a DocBook based format
like Sun is doing that then can be converted to HTML (like on
docs.sun.com) or to troff format on the fly (as man is doing).

[Solaris uses a modified version of the SGML DocBook 3.0 DTD (see
solbook(5) and /usr/share/lib/sgml/locale/C/dtds/solbookv2/) that
is used by a version of the docbook-to-man tool that is run by the
man command (see http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/tools/dtm/ and
ftp://ftp.x.org/contrib/utilities/docbook-to-man.tar.gz and also
directory /usr/lib/sgml/ on Solaris). These man pages are in the
..../man/sman* instead of .../man* sudirectories. Later versions
of Solaris can also have man sections with more than one letter.]


Markus

Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca> writes:

> P.S. Isn't info more powerful than man? We don't have
> hyperlinks in man pages. Whenever I see an underlined
> reference, I have no idea where to start looking for it.

When you read man pages with XEmacs,
references to other man pages are underlined,
and they ARE hyperlinks.

I don't mean this to be an XEmacs advertisement,
(make up your own mind)
but XEmacs does a pretty good job of emulating vi.

Personally, I NEED my source code to be highlighted.
I hate looking at code trying to figure out how it
could possible work only to eventually realize it's
commented out.

Oops, guess this is an XEmacs advertisement. Sorry.
Emacs is OK too.

Dan Espen wrote:
>
> Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca> writes:
>
> > P.S. Isn't info more powerful than man? We don't have
> > hyperlinks in man pages. Whenever I see an underlined
> > reference, I have no idea where to start looking for it.
>
> When you read man pages with XEmacs,
> references to other man pages are underlined,
> and they ARE hyperlinks.
>
> I don't mean this to be an XEmacs advertisement,
> (make up your own mind)
> but XEmacs does a pretty good job of emulating vi.
>
> Personally, I NEED my source code to be highlighted.
> I hate looking at code trying to figure out how it
> could possible work only to eventually realize it's
> commented out.
>
> Oops, guess this is an XEmacs advertisement. Sorry.
> Emacs is OK too.


Years ago, I tried emacs (or maybe Xemacs). It was
OK (I mean, I didn't really get to know it real well).
Since I was thoroughly familiar with vi, I found gvim
much easier to use. I've come to rely alot on vim
functionality, including the hot keys for splitting,
moving, resizing, and closing windows, the tag
referencing abilities, syntax colorizing, and
many key bindings (to cobbled scripts), as well as
font control and advanced expression search. I'm
sure much of this can all be done on [X]emacs, and
that [X]emacs has its own strengths. But the thing
about power editors is that it takes much time to
become proficient at, and a hard dependence to shake
(assuming that my life depended on it). I would be
surprised if the vi mode of emacs can emulate vim.
I believe that was the mode I was using years ago.
And frankly, I gave the emacs tutorial a whirl
just the other day and realized that it would take
more than just a short time to get functional with
it. Not to say that vim doesn't, just that I'm
already handy with vim.

Anyway, I'm sure most people would agree that there
is a special afinity between a person and the first
editor they learn (be it vi-based or emacs based), so
the situation has to be fairly desparate to make it
worthwhile to surmount the barrier in switching.
For now, I'll talk to my sys admin and see the prospect
of installing info. Though it seems odd that gcc 3.2.1
web manual is missing from the gnu site. That would
sure solve the problem.

Fred

In article <icd69enhxq.fsf@home-1.localdomain>,
Dan Espen <daneNO@SPAM.mk.telcordia.com> wrote:
>
>Personally, I NEED my source code to be highlighted.

Maybe you should start to decently indent them....

A common problems with Emacs users is to let emacs
auto-indent the way RMS likes to see it.

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:

> A common problems with Emacs users is to let emacs
> auto-indent the way RMS likes to see it.

Going OT... BUT... you didn't care to read the manual of the cc mode
distributed with every emacs tarball, did you? My .emacs has:

;; C-like languages major mode settings
;; ====================================

(defconst my-c-style
'((c-basic-offset . 2)
(c-comment-only-line-offset . 0)
(c-cleanup-list . (brace-else-brace
brace-elseif-brace
brace-catch-brace
empty-defun-braces
defun-close-semi
list-close-comma
scope-operator))
(c-hanging-braces-alist . ((brace-list-open)
(substatement-open after)
(block-close . c-snug-do-while)
(extern-lang-open after)
(class-open after)
(defun-open after)))
(c-offsets-alist . ((statement-block-intro . +)
(knr-argdecl-intro . 0)
(arglist-intro . +)
(substatement-open . +)
(label . 0)
(statement-cont . +)
(case-label . +)
(arglist-close . 0))))
"MLO C programming style")

(defun my-c-mode-common-hook ()
"Add my personal mode for C programming"
(c-add-style "MLO" my-c-style t)
; (c-toggle-auto-state 1)
(c-toggle-hungry-state 1)
; (setq c-echo-syntactic-information-p t)
(setq indent-tabs-mode nil))

(add-hook 'c-mode-common-hook 'my-c-mode-common-hook)

--
Maurizio Loreti http://www.pd.infn.it/~loreti/mlo.html
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Padova, Italy ROT13: ybergv@cq.vasa.vg

Maurizio Loreti <mlo@foobar.it> writes:

> js@cs.tu-berlin.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>
>> A common problems with Emacs users is to let emacs
>> auto-indent the way RMS likes to see it.
>
> Going OT... BUT... you didn't care to read the manual of the cc mode
> distributed with every emacs tarball, did you? My .emacs has:
>
> ;; C-like languages major mode settings
> ;; ====================================
>
> (defconst my-c-style

I agree and besides that, how about multiple styles depending
on the project you are working on:

(defun my-c-mode-hook ()
(if (string-match "fvwm" buffer-file-name) ;fvwm project settings:
(progn
(setq
c-indent-level 8
c-basic-offset 8
c-brace-offset 0
c-continued-brace-offset 0
c-brace-imaginary-offset 0
c-continued-statement-offset 0
c-label-offset 0
c-argdecl-indent 0
c-auto-newline nil
c-tab-always-indent t
indent-tabs-mode t)
(c-set-offset 'substatement-open 0))
;; Local site default settings
(setq
c-indent-level 2 ; Indent inside block
c-basic-offset 2
c-brace-offset 0 ; for braces, compared with other text in same context
c-continued-brace-offset 0 ; Extra for substatements start with open-braces
c-brace-imaginary-offset 0
c-continued-statement-offset 2 ; Extra for lines not starting new statements
c-label-offset -2 ; Offset of label, case relative to usual indentation
c-argdecl-indent 0 ; Indentation level of C function arguments
c-auto-newline nil ; Non-nil automatically newline before and after braces
c-tab-always-indent t
indent-tabs-mode nil
comment-column 40)))
(add-hook 'c-mode-hook 'my-c-mode-hook t)

I don't see RMS forcing me into anything.
Of course I mostly use XEmacs, so the anti-RMS comment makes no sense at all.

In article <400a44ac$1@news.uni-ulm.de>,
Andreas Borchert <borchert@mathematik.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>In article <400A0868.B31DBE09@doe.carleton.ca>, Fred Ma wrote:
>> Anyway, is there a way to access the manual (not the
>> man pages) for gcc 3.2.1? Thanks.
>
>The source of these manuals is in texinfo. It can be processed
>by TeX, giving results that can printed or previewed. Alternatively,
>it can be converted into info files which were originally intended
>for emacs. The info command is just a tool to access info files
>outside of emacs.
>
>So if you have emacs installed but are just missing info, you
>should attempt to access the gcc info files with emacs. Note
>that emacs is shipped with Solaris on the ``Software Companion'' CD.
>
>Alternatively, you can attempt to google for it as there are
>many info (or texinfo) to html cgi scripts on the web around.
>
>Andreas.
>
>--
>Dr. Andreas F. Borchert, SAI, Universitaet Ulm | One should make everything
>Helmholtzstrasse 18, E02, Tel +49 731 50-23572 | as simple as possible, but
>http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/sai/borchert/ | no simpler. -- A. Einstein

In article <400B59B4.9CD6FF9A@doe.carleton.ca>,
Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
....
>I think the hyperlinking is important. I tried emacs, but
>having used vi[m] for as long as I can remember, it's a
>little difficult. Also, I'm getting caught into the trap
>of spending lots of time getting to know tools, rather than
>actual algorithm development e.g. just getting to know
>info, vim's taglist, source-navigator, etc., etc.. So I'm
>going to shy away from learning another app now (especially
>since I already spent the time with info), but more than
>likely, I will do so in the future.

(1) It's hard to imagine time *better* spent than
spending it learning emacs.

Emacs is something, once learned a bit of (you'll *never* learn
all of it -- nor will anyone else!), you'll use almost every
minute you're on the computer.

I can't think of *anything* that'll boost your throughput
as much as emacs-skill will.

(Obviously, don't take my word for it; perhaps, however,
a bunch of people will followup either denying or verifying
it.)

(2) By far the easiest, most painless way to learn the rudiments
of emacs is by taking it's tutorial. Simply run emacs,
then type in only these two characters: C-h t (control-h
followed by a "t").

Then just do what it says. 100% painless!


Have fun

(Oh, sometime while learning (taking the tutorial), type
in "M-x doctor", and have a conversation with the shrink.
You'll enjoy this famous (infamous?) A-I-ish program
from way back in the 70's.)

David

More about emacs (or xemacs -- identical but different,
in ways I never looked into):

vi, vim, etc, are editing *tools*. When you need to
edit some text, you "run" that editor-program "on" the
file you want to edit.

You finish that bit of editing, and you exit out of
the editor, restarting a fresh copy of it only when
you again want to edit something.

Emacs -- different concept altogether.

Sure, you *can* use it that way, but no one
does. Once you start up emacs, you *keep it up*,
and basically *live in it*, doing just about anything
yoiu need to do, unless if it requires using a mouse,
or requires its own gui, like if it's showing color photos --
emacs being *text based*.

You're in emacs, and want to give a shell-command,
like run egrep and pipe that to sort etc -- you
simply say "M-x shell", and it gives you a new emacs-buffer
titled *shell*, which *is* running your standard shell
(from passwd), eg sh, csh, ksh, bash, whatever you've set-up.

Try emacs for a while -- soon you'll be a convert, raving
about what an incredible (no, I won't say "editor", that's
*way* too limiting) piece of software.

Give it a few minutes with that C-h t tutorial,
and you'll see!

David

Oh, be aware of gnu.emacs.help and comp.emacs newsgroups --
lots of expert advice and help there.

dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
>In article <400B59B4.9CD6FF9A@doe.carleton.ca>,
>Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:

[11 lines snipped]

>(1) It's hard to imagine time *better* spent than
>spending it learning emacs.

Gouging out your eyes with a red hot spoon, perhaps?


--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]