At one point in time I was running Emacs with an option which auto-commented ending braces with the label for the block they were closing (function name, if (condition), etc). I have since lost said option, and have spent several days searching for it. Is anyone familiar with an option, minor mode, or elisp snippet that accomplishes this task?
Verilog mode does this. I'm not familiar with Lisp, but as far as I understood the code the magic is done in verilog-label-be.
Related
I am new to C. I encountered an error message which involves unexpected "}". However, I checked the number of "}" with an editor and indeed they pair up.
Then I wonder if there is a compiler command, so the compilation can stop whatever I want? It will be convenient to have such tool as debug help.
Thank you.
(Edited in 29-10-2015)
I typically write my code with gedit. Nonetheless, since my work is mostly done on cluster, it will be troublesome to transport the files up and down. I must turn to nano, vi or vim which causes difficulty in debugging.
Stopping compilation partway through is rarely a useful feature. You'll want to see all of the errors that may exist in your code so you can fix more that just one at a time.
That said, an error such as a misplaced brace or parenthesis can cascade down and cause several more errors to appear. So if you see a long list of errors that don't seem to make sense when you look at the code, start at the top and fix that, then recompile to see if it took care of any others.
The answer is no compilers are all or nothing.
However, a good editor is recommended. For example, you can match brackets with the % command in vi, or if you have a color editor, you can visually see what's going on. A better IDE would even allow you to hide/show blocks of code, format it with proper indentation, and flag any compilation issues from static rules without actually compiling your code.
gcc 4.6.0
GNU Emacs 23.2.1
I have some c code and at some point I must have made a typing mistake. And now I am left with unbalanced curly braches or a parentheses.
I have about 2000 lines of code and I am just wondering is there any technique for finding them?
Emacs has some good features, so I am just wondering is there any way it can scan the code and tell me where they are. Currently I have a compile error related to this.
Many thanks for any suggestions,
In emacs you can use M-x check-parens . See http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/emacs/Parentheses.html
I would suggest adding "#ifdef 0 .... #endif" around blocks of code until the source compiles. Keep adjusting the size of the ifdef'd out code until you narrow down a chunk that compiles when ifdef'd out and doesn't otherwise. This chunk will contain the unbalanced brace.
Personally I'd start by ifdefing out almost the whole file and moving my "#ifdef 0" ahead each function until I started seeing compilation errors.
If you have crazy long functions then take the same sort of approach but within the function that's giving you trouble (once you've determined which function it is).
One good point to start is selecting all (M-x select-all) and then indenting the code (M-x indent-region). As emacs does a very good job indenting, you'll notice where the indentation failed.
Also, using show-paren-mode (M-x show-paren-mode) emacs will show you the matching paren of each ending paren (and vice-versa), so you can go through your code.
If you want something more fancy than plain highlighting, you could use rainbow delimiters: https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/RainbowDelimiters
Here is a short blog post on it: http://emacs-fu.blogspot.com/2011/05/toward-balanced-and-colorful-delimiters.html
I am writing a commandline calculator in C, and it would be very useful if it had the ability to move the cursor each time you close (for example) a parenthesis highlighting the previous one, like in emacs, etc.
For example, if you launch emacs, and type:
(blah)
then for a while after you type the closing parenthesis, the first one is highlighted.
I've tried some googling, but I don't really know what to search for.
Is there a simple and multiplatform (at the very least it's fine if it'd work on Linux, but I'd like it to work at least on Windows as well) way to move the cursor in this way?
If you want better control over the console, take a look at the ncurses library.
The Linux console can also be controlled through console codes. No libraries needed, just printf the appropriate codes to stdout.
The things you should search for are 'termcap', 'terminfo' or 'curses.'
ncurses should be able to do what you're asking for.
Check out ANSI escape codes. They are pretty basic, but a good place to start. The upshot is that they work for most terminals (Linux and Windows).
There is someone in my team that swears by using some kind of GVim feature to do manually code folding.
As I'm using another editor and do not really need the folding feature, I think it only pollutes the source code with tags like:
/* {{{1 */
Convincing the person not to use this folding is not an option (got into some heated discussions before).
I'm not really a GVim guy, I'm wondering if there are not any other ways to do the folding without changing the team's code?
Maybe putting the folding directions in a separate file, or
Doing some kind of smart folding that takes the syntax of the programming language into account without changing the source code?
I would imagine he could just add the following to his .vimrc:
set foldmethod=syntax
Assuming he is using a version of VIM that supports that. :)
It only took a Google for "vim folding" to discover that Vim supports six fold methods.
syntax, indent and diff all mean that the user has little control over where the folding happens. That may or may not be a problem.
marker is a problem for you because you don't like the markers.
expr had a little of each of those problems, depending on the expression you create.
If your man wants to define his own fold points, and store them in an separate file, it seems like set foldmethod=manual combined with :mkview and :loadview would do the trick.
You should try it yourself. Once you start using foldmethod=marker there is just no going back. I am working on a project now where I can't use marker folding and it feels like washing clothes in a time before there were washing machines.
So, I have a penchant for Easter Eggs... this dates back to me being part of the found community of the Easter Egg Archive.
However, I also do a lot of open source programming.
What I want to know is, what do you think is the best way to SYSTEMATICALLY and METHODICALLY obfuscate code.
Examples in PHP/Python/C/C++ preferred, but in other languages is fine, if the methodology is explained properly.
Compile the code with full optimization. Completely strip the binary.
Use a decompiler on the code.
I can guarantee the result will be so utterly unreadable that you won't even be able to read it ;)
In that case, you should use/write an "obfuscator". A program that does the job for you.
The Salamander Obfuscator can be used to obfuscate .Net programs, but it is more to prevent decompilation, thus not exactly what you need.
A good place to learn about obfuscation in C is International Obfuscated C Code Contest
In the spirit of renaming symbols: overuse scope and visibility rules by naming different variables with the same name.
The question is how to create seemingly non-obfuscated code in plain sight (open source) without it appearing to perform another function.
Some obvious methods:
remove comments and as much whitespace as you can without breaking things
join lines
rename variables and functions to be meaningless (preferably 1 character)
For systematic and methodical obfuscation of code, you cannot beat Perl. If you want something that compiles to a binary, there is always APL.
If you are targeting the .NET framework, put your easter egg source code in a resource file as a binhex string. Then you can have one of your initialisaing routines fetch it, decode it and compile it into memory. You can invoke it using reflection.
If you need help with the technical aspects of compiling into memory and calling into the resultant assembly I can give you I library I wrote and a sample program that uses it.
You can use this technology to load plug-ins, which is a legit thing to do and reasonable in an initialiser.