Dr Eberhard W Lisse <nospam@lisse.NA> writes:

> You are missing QSV, CSVQ, CSVIEW, CSVLENS and TYPS.

All look great from a quick glance, except for TYPS, which I could not
find easily. URL?

Thanks, very helpful!

Axel

Axel Reichert wrote:

> Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netNOSPAM.invalid> writes:
>
>>>>>>> On 2023-06-10, Javier wrote:
>>> For that kind of manual the best format is texinfo.
>>
>> I'd be curious of the reasoning behind such a conclusion?
>
> [snip]
>
> With the influx of less nerdy content creators [in the mid-90s] easier
> formats were needed. No, Docbook, SGML, XML were not filling that need.
> Look at how common light markup languages (Markdown, reStructured text,
> asciidoc(tor), Emacs org-mode) are nowadays, even for websites. Most
> (all?) of them allow for cross-target publishing from a single source that
> is readable even in raw format. Asciidoc allows for index creation. But
> many websites are much less structured than a scientific thesis, so for
> me, after using asciidoc for a while, it has become org-mode.
>
> While this some historical context, I think there are technical reasons
> as well: Texinfo AFAIK does not allow for pictures and nicely rendered
> equations, HTML and PDF do. The toolchain for HTML is vast, for PDF it
> is still much larger (due to the professional publishing business) than
> for Texinfo. The latter to me nowadays seems like an ancient HTML
> predecessor, the comparison with Lynx for HTML is fitting.

Just in case anyone is unaware of Pandoc [1], I highly recommend it if you
need to convert between document formats. It can read and write HTML,
Markdown, org-mode, reStructuredText, LaTeX, DocBook, and even docx (among
many others). Unfortunately it only supports *writing* Texinfo, not reading
it, or else I would have mentioned it earlier in the thread.

Like you say, tools like Pandoc make it practical to keep the "canonical"
documentation of a tool in a newer, more lightweight format like Markdown,
and then convert it to Texinfo or whatever as needed. I maintain a small
command-line tool [2] that has a man page, and this is the approach I use: I
author in Markdown and then use a one-line Pandoc invocation to convert it
to man format for consumption. I could also convert to HTML or PDF or
whatever, albeit that the man-style formatting conventions would probably
look weird in those contexts.

Benjamin

[1]: https://pandoc.org/

[2]: https://github.com/bdesham/pinboard-notes-backup

On 2023-06-12, Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> wrote:
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse <nospam@lisse.NA> writes:
>
>> You are missing QSV, CSVQ, CSVIEW, CSVLENS and TYPS.
>
> All look great from a quick glance, except for TYPS, which I could not
> find easily. URL?
>
> Thanks, very helpful!
>
> Axel

TYPST I suspect - https://github.com/typst/typst

E
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On 2023-06-11, Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2023-06-11, Eric <eric@deptj.eu> wrote:
8>< --------
>> Halibut.
>
> FAQ:
>
> ] Why on earth ‘Halibut’? What relevance does the name have to anything?
> ]
> ] Historical reasons. It's probably better not to ask.
>
> For those versed in childish word games of the English language,
> the name clearly communicates why the author started the project:
> "just for the hell of it".
>
>:)
>

I've wondered about the name from time to time, but never thought of
that. Plausible though.

E
--
ms fnd in a lbry

Eric <eric@deptj.eu> writes:

> On 2023-06-12, Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> wrote:
>>
>> All look great from a quick glance, except for TYPS, which I could not
>> find easily. URL?
>
> TYPST I suspect - https://github.com/typst/typst

Thanks, also interesting, even if not for text mangling (IIRC Eberhard
mentioned it already sometime ago, maybe in a different forum).

Axel

On 2023-06-08, Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> normally in my shell scripts I use the classics, such as grep, sed, awk,
> cut, sort, uniq, a bit of Perl etc.
>
> I recently learned about the existence of "mlr"
>
> https://miller.readthedocs.io/en/6.8.0/
>
> , "datamash",
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/datamash/manual/datamash.html/
>
> "jq",
>
> https://jqlang.github.io/jq/
>
> "q",
>
> https://harelba.github.io/q/
>
> and "sqlet"
>
> https://www.sqlet.com/
>
> which intrigued me and made me think about other tools that I
> might be missing.
>
> Any obvious candidates for text mangling?
>
> Pointers much appreciated!
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
> Axel
Perl does sort/cut/grep/awk/sed and lots more.

On 15.06.23 16:35, bozo user wrote:
> On 2023-06-08, Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> normally in my shell scripts I use the classics, such as grep, sed, awk,
>> cut, sort, uniq, a bit of Perl etc.
>>
>> [...]

> Perl does sort/cut/grep/awk/sed and lots more.

Note that the OP already mentioned perl in his tool-chest.

For the sake of your (assumed) goal, pointing out that perl
comprises a lot of basic tools already, it makes sense that
you structure it yet more differentiated, though.

With awk you have already grep, sed, cut, sort [in gawk],
uniq, "and lots more".[*]

So if that's all one needs (or if you are working in a POSIX
environment) one may (or has to) prefer the small and simple
awk, and a (POSIX) shell.

Janis

[*] With that lemma your statement may be re-formulated as
"Perl does awk and lots more." - So the OP would need to
determine in his "shell scripting/text mangling" context
what's still necessary beyond what provides awk (and shell),
and what of that will be provided by perl.

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou@hotmail.com> writes:

> With awk you have already grep, sed, cut, sort [in gawk],
> uniq, "and lots more".[*]

Yes, and with the help of this group and others next door, my awk
knowledge has grown to a level that allows me the shrink the usage of
other tools. I like to have as few tools as possible and believe that it
is more efficient to master them rather than to clumsily use a large bag
full of special purpose tools. For this idea to work, the tools must be
powerful and general purpose.

THAT was the reason of my question, not arbitrarily adding whatever is
available.

> So if that's all one needs (or if you are working in a POSIX
> environment) one may (or has to) prefer the small and simple awk, and
> a (POSIX) shell.

Add Emacs, and you have essentially my go-to tools. A proficient user of
all three (not that I count myself into that group) can do things that
amaze text mangling laymen. "Every sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." (Arthur C. Clarke)

Best regards

Axel

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Feeling myself tortured with 'info'-pages and with hints in some
> 'man'-page(-stub) that relevant information is only available in
> 'info'-pages I wonder whether there's some tool that extracts or
> dumps (structured or not) the 'info' page information to create
> some "all in one" page (in *roff, HTML, or plain text format)?
> (With all the hypertext links it's probably a desperate wish but
> maybe someone had a good idea implemented.)
>
> Janis
>

I have a shell function that dumps entire info pages to less:

info () {
command info --subnodes -o - "$1" | less
}

It's readable but misses all the navigation features.