|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: formidoformido Date: Jul 24, 2008 10:36
So, I've got:
print "Hello World\n";
... in the buffer and it's saved. I can use the debugger command to
run it. Strangely to me, 'run' is disabled. What does 'run' do? In
other IDEs I've used, I type some code, then I either compile or don't
depending on the language, and then I run. What's different here?
More generally, when confronted by a menu command, how can I easily go
to its definition?
|
| |
|
| | 83 Comments |
|
  |
Author: formidoformido Date: Jul 24, 2008 20:02
On Jul 24, 10:36Â am, formido gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I've got:
>
> print "Hello World\n";
>
> ... in the buffer and it's saved. I can use the debugger command to
> run it. Strangely to me, 'run' is disabled. What does 'run' do? In
> other IDEs I've used, I type some code, then I either compile or don't
> depending on the language, and then I run. What's different here?
>
> More generally, when confronted by a menu command, how can I easily go
> to its definition?
And I found the answer to the first question, buried in cperl's page
at emacswiki: Apparently you have to install something called Mode
Compile.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: XahXah Date: Jul 25, 2008 07:55
On Jul 24, 10:36 am, formido gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I've got:
>
> print "Hello World\n";
>
> ... in the buffer and it's saved. I can use the debugger command to
> run it. Strangely to me, 'run' is disabled. What does 'run' do? In
> other IDEs I've used, I type some code, then I either compile or don't
> depending on the language, and then I run. What's different here?
I don't know. But you can run it by typing Alt+x shell-command
(shortcut Alt+x !) then type “perl ‹filename›â€.
Or, you can write a short elisp so that pressing a key will run the
program in current buffer.
(defun run-current-file ()
"Execute or compile the current file.
For example, if the current buffer is the file x.pl,
then it'll call “perl x.pl†in a shell.
The file can be php, perl, python, bash,...
|
| Show full article (1.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Ted ZlatanovTed Zlatanov Date: Jul 25, 2008 09:41
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Xah gmail.com> wrote:
X> But you can run it by typing Alt+x shell-command (shortcut Alt+x !)
Please note that Alt is not the preferred prefix name for Emacs
purposes. It's Meta, abbreviated M (e.g. M-x), for two reasons:
1) Meta can be mapped to keys other than Alt
2) Meta can be invoked with ESC as well, which is very handy in a
terminal session (I actually use ESC all the time even in a graphical
session)
Ted
|
| |
| 5 Comments |
|
  |
Author: XahXah Date: Jul 25, 2008 14:55
On Jul 25, 9:41 am, Ted Zlatanov lifelogs.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT)Xahgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But you can run it by typing Alt+x shell-command (shortcut Alt+x !)
>
> Please note that Alt is not the preferred prefix name for Emacs
> purposes. It's Meta, abbreviated M (e.g. M-x), for two reasons:
>
> 1) Meta can be mapped to keys other than Alt
>
> 2) Meta can be invoked with ESC as well, which is very handy in a
> terminal session (I actually use ESC all the time even in a graphical
> session)
>
> Ted
Thanks for the info, i think it's good to know.
Here're some reason i think emacs should adopt the Alt+‹key› or
Alt-‹key› notation throughout its documentation.
|
| Show full article (3.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Lennart Borgman (gmail)Lennart Borgman (gmail) Date: Jul 25, 2008 17:33
Xah wrote:
> On Jul 25, 9:41 am, Ted Zlatanov lifelogs.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT)Xahgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But you can run it by typing Alt+x shell-command (shortcut Alt+x !)
>>
>> Please note that Alt is not the preferred prefix name for Emacs
>> purposes. It's Meta, abbreviated M (e.g. M-x), for two reasons:
>>
>> 1) Meta can be mapped to keys other than Alt
>>
>> 2) Meta can be invoked with ESC as well, which is very handy in a
>> terminal session (I actually use ESC all the time even in a graphical
>> session)
>>
>> Ted
>
> Thanks for the info, i think it's good to know.
>
> Here're some reason i think emacs should adopt the Alt+‹key› or ...
|
| Show full article (1.31Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Florian BeckFlorian Beck Date: Jul 25, 2008 17:05
Xah gmail.com> writes:
> • The Meta name isn't in some linguistic sense superior that covers
> different modifier keys on different OSes. It was one of the modifier
> key on obsolete keyboards used by lisp machines in the 1980s.
Actually, Meta is the name X11 gives to one of the modifier keys. Others
are control, alt, super and hyper.
The problem with your suggestion is that while on some keyboards the key
that has ALT written on it is the one meant in Emacs by Meta, calling
Meta Alt in the documentation would be endlessly confusing for people
who make use of X for their keybindings.
--
Florian Beck
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: XahXah Date: Jul 25, 2008 18:41
On Jul 25, 5:33 pm, "Lennart Borgman (gmail)"
gmail.com> wrote:
> Why should the documentation call Meta for Alt when it is not Alt? In
> for example the patched version of Emacs+EmacsW32 it is possible to use
> left and/or right windows keys as Meta. I guess a lot of people do that.
Standard and familiarity is important. Going by tech details, each app
will argue about the superiority of their terminology to no ends.
For example, Linux's KDE and Gnome largely adated all Windows's terms.
Left mouse button, right mouse button, instead of some 1st button or
2nd button (which emacs still use). Desktop, instad of various “Window
Managers†or “File managers†(or Directory Editor in older days).
Keyboard shortcut, as apposed to keybinding. File alias or File
shortcut, as opposed to Hard Link, Soft Link. Folders, as opposed to
Directory. File names, as opposed to File ID (older unix term)... etc.
Bottom line is that words and terms change with time, in computing as
well in science. Most tech geekers likes to associate “modern†with
“Microsoft†which they hate. But if we want to be hardcore, lots of
emacs's terms is invented by itself and not logical.
|
| Show full article (4.47Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: XahXah Date: Jul 25, 2008 19:04
Xah writes:
«The Meta name isn't in some linguistic sense superior that covers
different modifier keys on different OSes. It was one of the modifier
key on obsolete keyboards used by lisp machines in the 1980s.»
On Jul 25, 5:05 pm, Florian Beck wrote:
«Actually, Meta is the name X11 gives to one of the modifier keys.
Others are control, alt, super and hyper.»
I am sure Lisp Machine's keyboards predate X11. One way to start
research on this is to look at Wikipedia.
Unless, you actually have knowledge in the history of the subject. In
that case, sorry. Please give us more detail, i'm interested to know
about the origin of the Meta personally.
Thanks.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: formidoformido Date: Jul 26, 2008 20:05
>
>> More generally, when confronted by a menu command, how can I easily go
>> to its definition?
>
> Type Alt+x describe-key, then pull the menu. Then, you'll get the
> command name run by that menu. Then, type Alt+x describe-function.
> It'll pop up the online doc of the function with link to the source
> code where the function is defined.
>
> Xah
>
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|