Ag works fine most of the time. But sometimes, I want to do a search in, say, all XML files by using --xml, but not any .dtd files. Unfortunately, ag looks at .dtd files when asked to examine --xml.
I tried as a wild guess ag --no-dtd. Doesn't work. The --ignore options aren't for this.
I know there's a ~/.agignore file, but being absent minded and often interrupted, I don't want to bother edit that for just one or two searches and have to remember to put it back. I'm looking for a one-off easy way to avoid a certian file type.
Other examples could be wanting to look at C++ files but wanting to see only .c, .cpp, .cxx and such but not .h or .hpp, for just one time.
Two approaches.
Use the file extension (-G) to limit the scope of what ag looks at. For example, if you just want to search xml files: ag -G '\.xml$' search_token
Roll your own new file type.
Download the source and modify the /src/lang.c file to include your own file types, then (re)compile. Instructions to download and build ag are kept here: https://gist.github.com/k-takata/5124445; sounds like a hassle, but it's easy and fast to do.
Note: BTW, .agignore has been renamed to just .ignore.
Related
I've been scouring the web for hours looking for an approach to solving this problem, and I just can't find one. Hopefully someone can fast-track me. I'd like to cause the following behaviour:
When running ember s and a file of a certain extension is changed, I'd like to analyze the contents of that file and write to several other files in the same directory.
To give a specific example, let's assume I have a file called app/dashboard/dashboard.ember. dashboard.ember consists of 3 concatenated files: app/dashboard/controller.js, .../route.js, and .../template.hbs with a reasonable delimiter between the files. When dashboard.ember is saved, I'd like to call a function (inside an addon, I assume) that reads the file, splits it at the delimiter and writes the corresponding splitted files. ember-cli should then pick up the changed source (.js, .hbs, etc.) files that it knows how to handle, ignoring the .ember file.
I could write this as a standalone application, of course, but I feel like it should be integrated with the ember-cli build environment, but I can't figure out what concoction of hooks and tools I should use to achieve this.
I'm looking at using Mercurial for version control in a project, and was hoping you stackers could help me out with the regex, so that the .hgignore isn't a disgusting GLOB-by mess.
The big ignore directories are easy, however keeping certain sub-folders tracked has me stumped.
Here's the list of what I (believe) need INCLUDED for coding purposes.
Development/Src/OurGame
Development/Src/<all files in this directory, but not subfolders>
UDKGame/Config/DefaultGame.ini
UDKGame/Config/DefaultEngine.ini
If only there was the option for a .hginclude rather than .hgignore...
You could ignore everything and then use hg add to add the specific files that you want. The .hgignore file is only used to ignore things that haven't already been added to the repository.
Other than that, you do need to specify the files to ignore so I don't think that people could help you with this question without know what the files are that you don't want to track.
This might be difficult to answer. I am trying to understand some codebase and in one of the project folders named FOO there is a main.cpp file plus other .hpp and .cpp files. These filenames are made descriptive using underscores such as Hi_there_file.cpp etc.
There are two files Foo.tab.hpp and Foo.tab.cpp
Is *.tab.cpp an indication of something or just a poor try at making the file name descriptive?
Turns out, that file is generated by a perl script so they put a tab.cpp at the end. maybe even delete this question. Very very specific to what i'm working with
I'm working on a static library project for a c++ course I'm taking. The teacher insists that we define only one function per source file, grouping files/functions belonging to the same class in subdirectories for each class. This results in a structure like:
MyClass
\MyClass.cc (constructor)
\functionForMyClass.cc
\anotherFunctionForMyClass.cc
OtherClass
\OtherClass.cc (constructor)
Whether this is good practice or not is something I'd not like to discuss, since I'm simply obliged to organize my project in this manner.
I'm working in visual studio 2008, and somehow got strange link errors when using an identically named function (and thus filename) in two classes. This appears to be caused by the fact that visual studio puts all .obj files (one for each source file) in one intermediate directory, overwriting earlier generated object files when compiling identically named source files.
This could be solved by putting the object files in subdirectories based on the relative path of the input file. Visual studio allows one to configure the names of object files it generates and has macros to use in there, but there appears to be no macro for 'relative path of input file'.
So, is there some way to get this to work? If not, is using one project for each class the best work-around?
You are right, by default all object files are put into the same directory and their filenames are based on the source file name. The only solution I can think of is to change conflicting file's output file path in here:
Project Properties-C/C++-Output Files-Object File Name http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/3695/outputfile.png
PS. It sounds like the lecturer has a crappy (probably written by the lecturer himself) automatic code verifier that imposes this restriction. To get extra marks, offer to rewrite the parser so it works with normal/sane/non-weird projet layout.
Real answer:
Change
C/C++ => Output Files => Output File Name
to
$(IntDir)/%(RelativeDir)/
Every .obj file is going to be created in a sub folder so its not going to overwrite the previous on linking.
I can't think of any way to fudge the project settings to get VStudio to automatically split out the intermediate files into separate folders.
You have a few chances -
Build the class name into each file name. Most IDE's display just the file name in the tab view so if you do have several methods in different classes with the same name, its going to be difficult to tell them apart if the file name does not include the class name along with the method name. Which is really why I think your teachers advice is madness. I have not seen any programming style guide advocating that approach. Additionally it goes directly against the way various tools work - if you use Visual Studio to create a class, it creates one cpp file and one header, and automatically appends each new function to the single cpp file.
You could create a static library per class. When linking in static libs the obj files are all packaged up inside the .lib so conflicts are no longer a problem.
Switch comp-sci courses to one thats not being taught by a nut job. Seriously, this guy is completely out of touch with industry best practices and is trying to impose their own weird ideas on their students: Ideas that are going to have to be unlearnt the moment they leave the teaching environment.
You can also change output file name per file in its properties. Just make sure you use different names.
Can you use the class name in the filename to disambiguate? I'm thinking that you might have
MyClass
\MyClass.cc (constructor)
\function1_MyClass.cc
\function2_MyClass.cc
That would mean that every file would have a unique-enough name to defeat the problem. Is that an acceptable strategy?
You could probably arrange the properties of the project to put the object files into a folder which is below the folder of each source file. Once the project has this property, then every source file should inherit this property. (But if you've done experiments like Igor has suggested, then you may need to go through the properties as reset them back to the parent).
Having looked at the help files, I think you should go to project properties/C C++/Outpuf Files/Object File Name: and enter $(InputDir) (no trailing backslash). Every source file should then inherit this property and your .obj files should be separated.
You may need to do a Clean Solution before you make any changes.
Renaming the object files will work, but it's going to be a pain, and it will slow your compile/link cycle down. I've never figured out why, but it seems to confuse Visual Studio if the object files don't have the default names.
You could prefix the funciton name with the class name; e.g. myclass-ctor.cc, myclass-function1.cc etc.
You could have one .cc file per class which #includes the individual function files. In this case you'll need to prevent the #included files from being compiled seperately (either rename their extension or set Properties->Exclude From Build to 'Yes').
Out of curiosity, where does your teacher want you to put free functions e.g. local helper functions that might normally belong in an anonymous namespace?
If not, is using one project for each class the best work-around?
Not a good idea - apart from the fact that you won't end up with a single static library (without even more jiggery pokery), your link times are likely to increase and it will hide a
lot of pertinent info from the optimizer.
On another note; If the course is actually about C++ not OO programming, do what you need to pass but take your teacher's advice with a pinch of salt.
You don't have to put them in different translation units... why not put each function in a .h and include them all in one .cc per class? That will very likely give better output from the compiler.
I'd be asking why the teacher is insisting on this odd structure, too, the reasoning behind it should be explained. I know you didn't ask that of us, so that's all I'll say.
In Visual Studio 2010, I set
Properties -> C/C++ -> Output Files -> Output File Name
to
V:\%(Directory)$(PlatformName)_$(ConfigurationName)_%(Filename).obj
for OBJ files to end up next to the sources assuming the project lies on drive V (no idea whether there is a macro for it, yet).
By the way: $(InputDir) refers to the solution/project directory and will cause the same problem in another directory.
I have a source code of about 500 files in about 10 directories. I need to refactor the directory structure - this includes changing the directory hierarchy or renaming some directories.
I am using svn version control. There are two ways to refactor: one preserving svn history (using svn move command) and the other without preserving. I think refactoring preserving svn history is a lot easier using eclipse CDT and SVN plugin (visual studio does not fit at all for directory restructuring).
But right now since the code is not released, we have the option to not preserve history.
Still there remains the task of changing the include directives of header files wherever they are included. I am thinking of writing a small script using python - receives a map from current filename to new filename, and makes the rename wherever needed (using something like sed). Has anyone done this kind of directory refactoring? Do you know of good related tools?
If you're having to rewrite the #includes to do this, you did it wrong. Change all your #includes to use a very simple directory structure, at mot two levels deep and only using a second level to organize around architecture or OS dependencies (like sys/types.h).
Then change your make files to use -I include paths.
Voila. You'll never have to hack the code again for this, and compiles will blow up instantly if something goes wrong.
As far as the history part, I personally find it easier to make a clean start when doing this sort of thing; archive the old one, make a new repository v2, go from there. The counterargument is when there is a whole lot of history of changes, or lots of open issues against the existing code.
Oh, and you do have good tests, and you're not doing this with a release coming right up, right?
I would preserve the history, even if it takes a small amount of extra time. There's a lot of value in being able to read through commit logs and understand why function X is written in a weird way, or that this really is an off-by-one error because it was written by Oliver, who always gets that wrong.
The argument against preserving the history can be made for the following users:
your code might have embarrassing things, like profanity and fighting among developers
you don't care about the commit history of your code, because it's not going to change or be maintained in the future
I did some directory refactoring like this last year on our code base. If your code is reasonable structured at the beginning, you can do about 75-90% of the work using scripts written in your language of choice (I used Perl). In my case, we were moving from set of files all in one big directory, to a series of nested directories depending on namespaces. So, a file that declared the class protocols::serialization::SerializerBase was located in src/protocols/serialization/SerializerBase. The mapping from the old name to the new name was trivial, so that doing a find and replace on #includes in every source file in the tree was trivial, although it was a big change. There were a couple of weird edge cases that we had to fix by hand, but that seemed a lot better than either having to do everything by hand or having to write our own C++ parser.
Hacking up a shell script to do the svn moves is trivial. In tcsh it's foreach F ( $FILES ) ... end to adjust a set of files. Perl & Python offer better utility.
It really is worth saving the history. Especially when trying to track down some exotic bug. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or some such junk...
As for altering all the files... There was a similar question just the other day over at:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/573430/
c-include-header-path-change-windows-to-linux/573531#573531