Re: simple useful functions

[Tak Ota]

Could you teach me how to perform collect-string equivalent operation
with occur mode?

-Tak

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:13:46 -0700: Tak Ota <address@hidden> wrote:

> Thanks for the quick feedback.
> 
> Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:39:38 -0700: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > Tak Ota writes:
> >  > If you think the following two functions are universally useful please
> >  > consider incorporating them in simple.el or any appropriate package.
> >  > If not disregard.
> >  > 
> >  > -Tak
> >  > 
> >  > (defun collect-string (regexp &optional num)
> >  >   "Collect strings of REGEXP (or optional NUM paren) from the
> >  > current buffer into a collection buffer."
> > 
> > What does this do that M-x occur doesn't do?  Could it be added to
> > occur or to occur-mode?
> 
> I don't think you can perform M-1 M-x collect-string with an input
> string of (defun \([^ ]+\)
> 
> It's handy to collect function names from source code or make a list
> of image URLs from a given HTML file and so on.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong.  To my understanding occur is like running
> grep to the current buffer while collect-string is running a special
> case of sed or awk to the current buffer.
> 
> >  > (defun source (script &optional shell keep-current-directory)
> >  >   "Source the specified shell script.
> >  > Source the shell SCRIPT and import the environment into this
> >  > emacs.  The optional SHELL specifies the shell other than the
> >  > default `shell-file-name'.  When KEEP-CURRENT-DIRECTORY is nil,
> >  > which is the default, the current directory is temporarily
> >  > changed to the directory where the script resides while sourcing
> >  > the script."
> > 
> > Probably this should be in the "shell-" namespace.
> 
> I agree.  That makes sense.
> 
> > I can see why the side effect of importing the environment might be
> > useful, but I think that should be explicit in the name.
> > 
> >  >     (call-process shell nil t nil "-c" (concat "source " script "; 
> > printenv"))
> > 
> > Isn't "." rather than "source" the portable idiom here?
> 
> You are correct.  "." is better.
> 
> -Tak