command line vs gui
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: micro solution backpack cd-writer hell
Next: "...error while loading shared libraries: libg2c.so.0"
From: Lee Sau Dan on 3 Dec 2005 01:32 >>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Brox <tobias(a)stud.cs.uit.no> writes: Tobias> [Lee Sau Dan] Peter> Because it's NOT infinite. Boolean forms have a "normal Peter> form" to which all may be reduced: the conjunction of Peter> disjuncts of atomic propositions and their negations. >> It's infinite because the grammar is recursive. Tobias> A rational number can also be written recursively, still Tobias> any rational number can be expressed in a normalized form, Tobias> using only two integers. Does that make the decimal expansion of 1/3 finite? Infinite is infinite. Tobias> Further on, it is possible to cover the very most of the Tobias> common use cases with a simple user interface. Translation: the simple user interface truncates the power of the tool. Tobias> I'm quite sure that it should be trivial to make a GUI to Tobias> find, and using such an interface will be easier than to Tobias> read the find manual. Then, why haven't you done it? Tobias> However, quite often find is used as part of a script, I use find quite a lot on the CLI. More often than in a script. (But once a script is written, it can be invoked 1000s of times without me bothering with it.) Tobias> and the possibility to combine different commands into a Tobias> script is something that cannot easily be done in a GUI. -- Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{@nJX6X~} E-mail: danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
From: Peter T. Breuer on 3 Dec 2005 05:49 In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Brox <tobias(a)stud.cs.uit.no> writes: > Tobias> [Lee Sau Dan] > Peter> Because it's NOT infinite. Boolean forms have a "normal > Peter> form" to which all may be reduced: the conjunction of > Peter> disjuncts of atomic propositions and their negations. > >> It's infinite because the grammar is recursive. > Tobias> A rational number can also be written recursively, still > Tobias> any rational number can be expressed in a normalized form, > Tobias> using only two integers. > Does that make the decimal expansion of 1/3 finite? It makes its expression finite. > Infinite is infinite. ??? Then please write down 1/3 and come back when you are finished. Peter
From: blmblm on 3 Dec 2005 07:12 In article <873blak7wj.fsf(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de>, Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "Tobias" == Tobias Brox <tobias(a)stud.cs.uit.no> writes: > > Tobias> [Lee Sau Dan] > Peter> Because it's NOT infinite. Boolean forms have a "normal > Peter> form" to which all may be reduced: the conjunction of > Peter> disjuncts of atomic propositions and their negations. > > >> It's infinite because the grammar is recursive. > > Tobias> A rational number can also be written recursively, still > Tobias> any rational number can be expressed in a normalized form, > Tobias> using only two integers. > >Does that make the decimal expansion of 1/3 finite? > >Infinite is infinite. > Well, one could argue about exactly what that ("infinite is infinite") means and whether it's true (given that two infinite sets might or might not have the same cardinality), but that's probably not the point .... Could the two sides agree on the following? (*) For a particular invocation of "find", the size of the expression specifying search criteria is finite. (*) Expressions specifying search criteria for "find" can be of arbitrary size and complexity -- i.e., there's no upper bound. And then maybe the disagreement is about whether "of arbitrary size and complexity" and "infinite" are equivalent?? But with regard to GUI versus CLI: A GUI that limits the total size of the search-criteria expression would impose restrictions not imposed by the CLI. I *think*, however, that Peter is saying he can build a GUI that doesn't impose such restrictions, i.e., something that allows you to create expressions of arbitrary size and complexity, expressed as .... some sort of tree structure maybe? I'm not convinced that this would overall be better for really complex expressions than a CLI, but this may be a "YMMV" situation. [ snip ] -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: Peter T. Breuer on 3 Dec 2005 07:25 In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: > A GUI that limits the total size of the search-criteria expression > would impose restrictions not imposed by the CLI. I *think*, however, > that Peter is saying he can build a GUI that doesn't impose such > restrictions, i.e., something that allows you to create expressions > of arbitrary size and complexity, expressed as .... some sort of > tree structure maybe? No, the grammar is just foo* (some finite number of repetitions of foo), where foo is [a] [b] ... [z] where a-z are the individual kinds of options provided by find, e.g. "-type". (I mean "optionally a" by "[a]"). The semantics is the OR of the a-z, and the AND of the foo. Semantic considerations apply to allow you to phrase the form this way - for example, the OR of two FSMs (regular expressions) is a FSM; the OR of two range expressions )a,b( is a range expression )a,b(, etc. I mean {x| x<a || x>b} by )a,b(. Peter
From: blmblm on 3 Dec 2005 08:21
In article <hff863-cbo.ln1(a)news.it.uc3m.es>, Peter T. Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: >In comp.os.linux.misc blmblm(a)myrealbox.com wrote: >> A GUI that limits the total size of the search-criteria expression >> would impose restrictions not imposed by the CLI. I *think*, however, >> that Peter is saying he can build a GUI that doesn't impose such >> restrictions, i.e., something that allows you to create expressions >> of arbitrary size and complexity, expressed as .... some sort of >> tree structure maybe? > >No, the grammar is just foo* (some finite number of repetitions of foo), >where foo is > > [a] [b] ... [z] > >where a-z are the individual kinds of options provided by find, e.g. >"-type". (I mean "optionally a" by "[a]"). > >The semantics is the OR of the a-z, and the AND of the foo. Here's an example of something that doesn't seem to me to be expressible that way: find somedir ( -name "foo*" -a -mtime -1 ) -o ( -name "bar*" -a -mtime -2 ) Or is there something I'm not getting about what you're saying .... > >Semantic considerations apply to allow you to phrase the form this way - >for example, the OR of two FSMs (regular expressions) is a FSM; the OR >of two range expressions )a,b( is a range expression )a,b(, etc. > >I mean {x| x<a || x>b} by )a,b(. -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. |