home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group96a.txt
/
000056_icon-group-sender _Tue Feb 27 22:05:14 1996.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1996-09-05
|
2KB
Received: by cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu; Wed, 28 Feb 1996 10:38:56 MST
To: icon-group@cs.arizona.edu
Date: 27 Feb 1996 22:05:14 GMT
From: mustard@interlog.com (Bill Mustard)
Message-Id: <4gvv6q$bbu@steel.interlog.com>
Organization: InterLog Internet Services
Sender: icon-group-request@cs.arizona.edu
References: <41dvur$hvb@horus.infinet.com>, <4gniib$dta@ns2.ryerson.ca>
Reply-To: mustard@interlog.com
Subject: Re: Icon as an editing tool
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@cs.arizona.edu
Status: O
In <4gniib$dta@ns2.ryerson.ca>, aaab@acs.ryerson.ca (Al Aab - CNED/W94) writes:
>Bruce S. Tobin (btobin@infinet.com) wrote:
>: I'm looking for a better way to automate (or semi-automate) some heavy
>: C++ editing I'm going to have to do soon, making lots of similar changes to
>: lots of different files. Is this a good use for Icon, or would I be
>: better off with sed, awk, or emacs lisp? Thanks.
>
>
>emacs lisp might be the slowest of them all,
>awk , i do not know,
FWIW awk will do the job nicely if your edits are mostly on one line at
a time. If your input has many cases where you may have to scan multiple
lines to determine your output, I wouldn't normally use it.
perl is easier to debug and "more general", runs fairly quickly too.
>sed was such a cryptic (beats APL) pain to someone, that he had to modify
>the DOS C source,
> to add a trace.
>if u know C well, it might b a good idea 2 try it. Look in the huge
>accumulated wealth of C libraries & shareware, first.
>C is the fastest thing after assembler.
>
>do u know icon or snobol ?
Either of these are appropriate tools.
Another cryptic but powerful tool is M4, shipped with most *IX
development suites.
I personally would choose which ever I was most current on and
get the job done. Probably perl or icon or awk.
>