On 23 January 2010 16:24, Steve Simon <st...@quintile.net> wrote: >> Another problem with stuff in contrib is, that their software is not >> well documented (i.e. no man pages), so that one probably has to read >> the source in order to be able to use it. > > s/with stuff/with some stuff/
Ok, so far I haven't seen an exception, but sure there must be. :) >> Btw., I know the " and "" scripts by R Cox, I use them. Without >> something like them, it would be hell. > > I have never felt the need for tools like these, I use the mouse to edit > the text on the screen (changing history), I then double click to the right > of the line and click send which resubmits the text. > > The idea that any text on the screen may be used to form a new command is > very powerful, but takes some getting used to. > > Perhaps you need to give it a bit more time. > > -Steve Well, probably this is more about what kind of work you do. If the commands have a rich output to the screen, you, fist, have to visually find the command you want to reuse. This may be well off the screen now, even thought it may be just say a last-but-one command issued. Not speaking of commands issued somewhat earlier. Finding these sometimes is cumbersome. This was probably the reason why " and "" exist (and why the videos someone here recently pointed to suggest using these scripts in situations like I describe). I also often do reediting as you describe. It is powerful, no question. But sometimes, since such editing also disturbs 'the history', I find copying the command to the input line first a more secure choice. If you edit the commands of the 'history', you limit the possibility of checking later what actually was issued. And the knowledge of what really was there may be of help when you realize you made a mistake somewhere. R
