Couple of automation questions

Couple of automation questions

[C K Kashyap]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 541 bytes --]

Hi,
I have a situation where I need to "beautify" a log file quite often. I need
to do the same set of steps.
What is the recommended best practices for the following approaches -
1. Keyboard Macro
What is the way to save the macro to disk? Do we open a new buffer (or a
buffer that contains all keyboard macros) and then insert it there and save
it?

2. Scripting
Whats the recommended way to get started with scripting? Do I open up a
buffer and start typing? I dont seem to get function name completion in a
new buffer.

Regards,
Kashyap

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 684 bytes --]

Re: Couple of automation questions

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 27.07.2011 07:31, schrieb C K Kashyap:
> Hi,
> I have a situation where I need to "beautify" a log file quite often. I need
> to do the same set of steps.
> What is the recommended best practices for the following approaches -
> 1. Keyboard Macro
> What is the way to save the macro to disk?

21.5 Naming and Saving Keyboard Macros
======================================

Do we open a new buffer (or a
> buffer that contains all keyboard macros) and then insert it there and save
> it?
>
> 2. Scripting
> Whats the recommended way to get started with scripting? Do I open up a
> buffer and start typing? I dont seem to get function name completion in a
> new buffer.

Don't care for things like that at the beginning.

See doku of

M-x dabbrev-expand

it will do all you need at this point and context.

Andreas

>
> Regards,
> Kashyap
>

Re: Couple of automation questions

[Teemu Likonen]

* 2011-07-27T11:01:18+05:30 * C. K. Kashyap wrote:

> Hi,
> I have a situation where I need to "beautify" a log file quite often. I need
> to do the same set of steps.
> What is the recommended best practices for the following approaches -

> 1. Keyboard Macro
> What is the way to save the macro to disk? Do we open a new buffer (or a
> buffer that contains all keyboard macros) and then insert it there and save
> it?

See the info node

    C-h i g (emacs) Save Keyboard Macro RET

> 2. Scripting
> Whats the recommended way to get started with scripting? Do I open up a
> buffer and start typing? I dont seem to get function name completion in a
> new buffer.

"Scripting" in Emacs is actually programming in Emacs Lisp. To get
started with Emacs Lisp I suggest reading "An Introduction to
Programming in Emacs Lisp" and of course the Emacs Lisp reference
manual.

    C-h i g (eintr) Top RET
    C-h i g (elisp) Top RET

Re: Couple of automation questions

[C K Kashyap]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 709 bytes --]

>
>
> "Scripting" in Emacs is actually programming in Emacs Lisp. To get
> started with Emacs Lisp I suggest reading "An Introduction to
> Programming in Emacs Lisp" and of course the Emacs Lisp reference
> manual.
>
>    C-h i g (eintr) Top RET
>    C-h i g (elisp) Top RET
>

Thanks Teemu ... I am aware of elisp. What I am looking for are general tips
on how one goes about actually writing them in real time ( while editing
some text) ... for example, if I do a kill and want to yank 10 times, What
I'd do is M-:(dotimes (i 10) (yank))

but is that the recommended way or would writing the script in the main
buffer and executing it with C-x-e better ... or is there an even better
way?

Regards,
Kashyap

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1012 bytes --]

Re: Couple of automation questions

[Teemu Likonen]

* 2011-07-27T13:41:29+05:30 * C. K. Kashyap wrote:

> Thanks Teemu ... I am aware of elisp. What I am looking for are
> general tips on how one goes about actually writing them in real time
> ( while editing some text) ... for example, if I do a kill and want to
> yank 10 times, What I'd do is M-:(dotimes (i 10) (yank))
>
> but is that the recommended way or would writing the script in the
> main buffer and executing it with C-x-e better ... or is there an even
> better way?

There are options. I'd say that do what you feel is comfortable to you.
I'll just add another option: write and define an interactive function
in the *scratch* buffer and then execute it (M-x ...) in the target
buffer.

Re: Couple of automation questions

[Memnon Anon]

C K Kashyap <ckkashyap@gmail.com> writes:

> ... I am aware of elisp. What I am looking for are general tips on how
> one goes about actually writing them in real time ( while editing some
> text) ... for example, if I do a kill and want to yank 10 times, What
> I'd do is M-:(dotimes (i 10) (yank))

http://www.masteringemacs.org/articles/2010/11/29/evaluating-elisp-emacs/

should give you some ideas.

I'd say it depends on how complex the elisp is.

Memnon

Re: Couple of automation questions

[fork]

C K Kashyap <ckkashyap <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Thanks Teemu ... I am aware of elisp. What I am looking for are general tips
on how one goes about actually writing them in real time ( while editing some
text) ... for example, if I do a kill and want to yank 10 times, What I'd do is
M-:(dotimes (i 10) (yank))
> 
> but is that the recommended way or would writing the script in the main buffer
and executing it with C-x-e better ... or is there an even better way?

What I do is to improvise a macro by C-x-( etc.  Then you can "M-x
name-last-kbd-macro" to give it an identifier "M-x insert-kbd-macro" put the
macro in your .emacs file for later.

sed + awk + tr + shell scripting might be a better fit for automatically
beautifying log files though

Re: Couple of automation questions

[Teemu Likonen]

* 2011-07-27T16:52:35Z * fork wrote:

> sed + awk + tr + shell scripting might be a better fit for
> automatically beautifying log files though

We are Lisp people, right? Then we could use Common Lisp too.

Re: Couple of automation questions

[fork]

Teemu Likonen <tlikonen <at> iki.fi> writes:

> > sed + awk + tr + shell scripting might be a better fit for
> > automatically beautifying log files though
> 
> We are Lisp people, right? Then we could use Common Lisp too.

Indeed!  Often it is a trade off between aesthetics and pragmatics, but in terms
of grace, Lisp is the hands down winner in that match up.

Re: Couple of automation questions

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 27.07.2011 18:52, schrieb fork:
> C K Kashyap<ckkashyap<at>  gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> Thanks Teemu ... I am aware of elisp. What I am looking for are general tips
> on how one goes about actually writing them in real time ( while editing some
> text) ... for example, if I do a kill and want to yank 10 times, What I'd do is
> M-:(dotimes (i 10) (yank))
>>
>> but is that the recommended way or would writing the script in the main buffer
> and executing it with C-x-e better ... or is there an even better way?
>
> What I do is to improvise a macro by C-x-( etc.  Then you can "M-x
> name-last-kbd-macro" to give it an identifier "M-x insert-kbd-macro" put the
> macro in your .emacs file for later.
>
> sed + awk + tr + shell scripting might be a better fit for automatically
> beautifying log files though
>
>
>

yes maybe, if the tasks repeat and are basically simple. Than you could 
use some python or perl too.

no, if it's seldom or tricky.

sed, awk etc. don't have such a thing like edebug for example.

Andreas

Re: Couple of automation questions

[C K Kashyap]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 451 bytes --]

>
>
> yes maybe, if the tasks repeat and are basically simple. Than you could use
> some python or perl too.
>
> no, if it's seldom or tricky.
>
> sed, awk etc. don't have such a thing like edebug for example.
>
> Andreas
>
>
Hey Andreas,
You are saying that if the task is not simple then lisp would be a better
way to go right?

Hey Teemu  ... Are you suggesting common lisp because emacs lisp would fall
short in some situations?

Regards,
Kashyap

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 780 bytes --]

Re: Couple of automation questions

[Teemu Likonen]

* 2011-07-28T08:10:42+05:30 * C. K. Kashyap wrote:

> Hey Teemu ... Are you suggesting common lisp because emacs lisp would
> fall short in some situations?

I was just pointing out that there are Lisps outside Emacs too. If we
suggest to others or choose a programming language outside Emacs it
might be Common Lisp.

Re: Couple of automation questions

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 28.07.2011 04:40, schrieb C K Kashyap:
>>
>>
>> yes maybe, if the tasks repeat and are basically simple. Than you could use
>> some python or perl too.
>>
>> no, if it's seldom or tricky.
>>
>> sed, awk etc. don't have such a thing like edebug for example.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>>
> Hey Andreas,
> You are saying that if the task is not simple then lisp would be a better
> way to go right?
>

That way. These questions are pretty general. Finally every task 
deserves it's own choice and consideration.

Many tools are able doing the same or similar things.
Right decision will depend on your experience, knowledge, further 
prospects etc.

I'm using all mentioned so far.

If you may select some output with fields, awk always is nice to use for 
example.

Well, awk from an shell inside Emacs, sure, which helps editing a lot.


> Hey Teemu  ... Are you suggesting common lisp because emacs lisp would fall
> short in some situations?
>
> Regards,
> Kashyap
>