Pyrpl Documentation Release 0.9.4.0
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Leo API Documentation Release 4.11Dev
Leo API Documentation Release 4.11dev Ed K. Ream May 31, 2018 Contents 1 leo Package 3 1.1 leo Package...............................................3 1.2 Subpackages...............................................3 1.2.1 core Package..........................................3 1.2.1.1 core Package.....................................3 1.2.1.2 bzr_version Module...............................3 1.2.1.3 format-code Module...............................3 1.2.1.4 leoApp Module...................................3 1.2.1.5 leoAtFile Module................................. 11 1.2.1.6 leoBridge Module................................. 22 1.2.1.7 leoBridgeTest Module.............................. 23 1.2.1.8 leoCache Module.................................. 23 1.2.1.9 leoChapters Module............................... 25 1.2.1.10 leoColor Module.................................. 27 1.2.1.11 leoCommands Module............................... 28 1.2.1.12 leoCompare Module................................ 40 1.2.1.13 leoConfig Module................................. 42 1.2.1.14 leoDebugger Module............................... 42 1.2.1.15 leoDynamicTest Module............................. 42 1.2.1.16 leoEditCommands Module............................ 43 1.2.1.17 leoFileCommands Module............................ 43 1.2.1.18 leoFind Module................................... 48 1.2.1.19 leoFrame Module.................................. 57 1.2.1.20 leoGlobals Module................................ 57 1.2.1.21 leoGui Module.................................. -
The Table of Equivalents / Replacements / Analogs of Windows Software in Linux
The table of equivalents / replacements / analogs of Windows software in Linux. Last update: 16.07.2003, 31.01.2005, 27.05.2005, 04.12.2006 You can always find the last version of this table on the official site: http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/. This page on other languages: Russian, Italian, Spanish, French, German, Hungarian, Chinese. One of the biggest difficulties in migrating from Windows to Linux is the lack of knowledge about comparable software. Newbies usually search for Linux analogs of Windows software, and advanced Linux-users cannot answer their questions since they often don't know too much about Windows :). This list of Linux equivalents / replacements / analogs of Windows software is based on our own experience and on the information obtained from the visitors of this page (thanks!). This table is not static since new application names can be added to both left and the right sides. Also, the right column for a particular class of applications may not be filled immediately. In future, we plan to migrate this table to the PHP/MySQL engine, so visitors could add the program themselves, vote for analogs, add comments, etc. If you want to add a program to the table, send mail to winlintable[a]linuxrsp.ru with the name of the program, the OS, the description (the purpose of the program, etc), and a link to the official site of the program (if you know it). All comments, remarks, corrections, offers and bugreports are welcome - send them to winlintable[a]linuxrsp.ru. Notes: 1) By default all Linux programs in this table are free as in freedom. -
External Factors in Sustainability of Open Source Software
External Factors in Sustainability of Open Source Software Marat Valiev CMU-ISR-21-103 February 2021 Institute for Software Research School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Thesis Committee: James Herbsleb (Chair) Bogdan Vasilescu (Co-Chair) Audris Mockus (University of Tennessee) Vladimir Filkov (UC Davis) Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Societal Computing. Copyright © 2021 Marat Valiev Keywords: Collaborative Software Development, Empirical Software Engineering, Open Source Abstract Modern software development is heavily reliant on Open Source. It saves time and money, but, as any other non-commercial software, it comes on as-is basis. If not properly maintained or even abandoned by its community, Open Source Software (OSS) might impose extra costs or introduce bugs to the downstream projects. While software developers are well aware of these premises, existing techniques of miti- gating such risks assume sustainability to be an intrinsic property of OSS, largely ignoring external factors. With plenty of examples of even high profile projects failing because of bugs in upstream dependencies, funding issues, lost competition or key developers left, it is important to understand the effect of these factors on OSS sustainability. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, this dissertation ex- plores effects of external factors in OSS sustainability, the mechanisms behind them, and proposes tools to make certain risk factors more visible. The findings indicate that multiple external factors, such as reused libraries, dependent projects and organi- zational involvement, play a significant role in OSS projects sustainability. Projects serving end users and end programmers are particularly at risk to be overwhelmed by excessive number of requests, especially questions. -
Smith 2001 Report.Pdf (1.328Mb)
TOWARDS MODERN LITERATE PROGRAMMING Honours Project Report, 2001 Matthew Smith Dr. Neville Churcher (Supervisor) ABSTRACT Literate programming was invented by Donald Knuth as a technique for improved documenta tion of program understanding. It involves writing code and documentation in a single source document, ordered for comprehension by humans rather than computers. Despite its ability to produce software of higher quality and maintainability, the technique is not widely used. In this report, we present a comprehensive background of literate programming that shows what the methodology is currently capable of. We also isolate the factors that limit its mainstream use, forming a set of requirements for further work. KEYWORDS: literate programming, software comprehension, structured documentation CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 The software comprehension problem 2 1.2 Motivation and approach . 3 2 BACKGROUND 4 2.1 What is literate programming? 4 2.2 Components of a literate program 5 2.3 Typical features . 7 2.3.1 Language support 7 2.3.2 Macros . 7 2.3.3 Pretty-printing . 7 2.3.4 Indexing and cross-referencing 8 2.3.5 Processing intelligence . 9 2.4 Literate programming systems 9 2.4.1 The WEB family .. 9 2.4.2 noweb and nuweb 10 2.4.3 FunnelWeb 11 2.4.4 CLiP .... 11 2.4.5 Interscript . 11 2.5 Uses and examples 11 2.6 Alternative documentation techniques . 12 2.6.1 Single source methods .. 12 2.6.2 Multiple source methods 13 2.7 Summary . 13 3 PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS 14 3.1 Issues of philosophy .......... 14 3.1.1 Programs as works of literature . -
A Survey on Performance of Different Text Editor
International Journal of Emerging Science and Engineering (IJESE) ISSN: 2319–6378, Volume-1 Issue-9, July 2013 A Survey on Performance of different Text Editor Virendra Kumar Swarnkar, K. J. Satao Abstract: A program that allows its user to pen, view, and edit By folding sections of a document, the users can reduce plain text files is known as Text Editor. On contrary to word clutter in the document and just focus on the areas that are processors, text editors focuses on editing functions for plain text important at any given moment. Essentially, folding creates an instead of adding formatting to text. Text editors serve wide variety of people with wide variety of purposes. Text Editors are generally outline based on the document, and allows the users to used by software programmers and web developers use text editors collapse levels of the outline when the users want to. to write and edit in programming and markup languages. Line and word wrapping: However, text editors are ideal tools for anyone who needs to write Lines are endless (or very nearly so) until the user hit enter quickly and simply, read source code, or create text files. One of and start a new line. Line wrapping is a display preference in the most useful tools in a text editor's repertoire is Syntax most text editors that will wrap (or break) lines when they Highlighting. Programming/markup languages codes are written in color. Text Editing can be efficiently done both in static as well reach a certain length. The wrapping does not affect the line as dynamic environment using a efficient Text Editor. -
Leo API Documentation Release 4.11Dev
Leo API Documentation Release 4.11dev Ed K. Ream Aug 18, 2018 Contents 1 leo Package 3 1.1 leo Package...............................................3 1.2 Subpackages...............................................3 1.2.1 core Package..........................................3 1.2.1.1 core Package.....................................3 1.2.1.2 bzr_version Module...............................3 1.2.1.3 format-code Module...............................3 1.2.1.4 leoApp Module...................................3 1.2.1.5 leoAtFile Module................................. 11 1.2.1.6 leoBridge Module................................. 22 1.2.1.7 leoBridgeTest Module.............................. 23 1.2.1.8 leoCache Module.................................. 23 1.2.1.9 leoChapters Module............................... 25 1.2.1.10 leoColor Module.................................. 27 1.2.1.11 leoCommands Module............................... 28 1.2.1.12 leoCompare Module................................ 40 1.2.1.13 leoConfig Module................................. 42 1.2.1.14 leoDebugger Module............................... 42 1.2.1.15 leoDynamicTest Module............................. 42 1.2.1.16 leoEditCommands Module............................ 43 1.2.1.17 leoFileCommands Module............................ 43 1.2.1.18 leoFind Module................................... 48 1.2.1.19 leoFrame Module.................................. 57 1.2.1.20 leoGlobals Module................................ 57 1.2.1.21 leoGui Module.................................. -
PDF Export Commands
The Org Manual Release 9.4 The Org Mode Developers This manual is for Org version 9.4. Copyright c 2004{2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover Texts being \A GNU Manual," and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled \GNU Free Documentation License." (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: \You have the freedom to copy and modify this GNU manual." i Table of Contents 1 Introduction::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 1.1 Summary :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 1.2 Installation :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 1.3 Activation ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2 1.4 Feedback::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3 1.5 Typesetting Conventions Used in this Manual :::::::::::::::::: 4 2 Document Structure:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6 2.1 Headlines :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6 2.2 Visibility Cycling::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6 2.2.1 Global and local cycling ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6 2.2.2 Initial visibility:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 8 2.2.3 Catching invisible edits :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 8 2.3 Motion::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 8 2.4 Structure