One particularly mnemonic collection of switches is 'plane':
perl -plane 'my $script'
which iterates over all files given on the command-line (or stdin) and
+ (p)rints every processed line back out
+ deals with (l)ine endings, in and out
+ (a)utosplits every line into @F
I am aware that -n and -p are mutually exclusive, but as -p overrides -n, it's seems simpler to just keep 'plane' in mind and remove the 'p' if necessary.
Thank you for the pointer and, more so, your contributions.
That screenshot of SICP in Emacs -- running side-by-side with the built-in Guile interpreter -- induces peculiar sensations. An echo of how things could've been and possibly still are in some obscure(d) corners of the Net. An interactive learning environment that at least points in the right direction. It certainly looks elegant and somewhat inspirational to me (though my inner Alan Kay is voicing some profound objections ;).
In any case: you carried that torch for a while, don't be hesitant accepting apparently undue credit -- there's too little, in any case, to warrant worry. ;)
':back' is mapped to 'H' -- in correspondence to the usual Vi/Vim paradigm to move the cursor with the home-row keys, hjkl. ':open' is naturally mapped to 'o' and drops you into a tab-completable shell. ':tabopen' -> 't' and so on.
The key part, as in Vim, are /not/ the mnemonic, highly effective shortcuts.
Rather, it's the modal workflow that Vim and it's spritual descendants bring to the table.
I'll leave it at that (sounding like a damn preacher already).
[0] Now that I've looked at it, it becomes clear that they're selling rather directly to Vim-acolytes. Pity, perhaps.
Suppose you're reading a biography of Huygens. You may find yourself
inspired to memorize a few of the basic facts therein. Dutifully, you
feed his life's dates, his major acquaintances and maybe a few places
of importance into the SR system of your choice. You are committed
and keep repeating those facts in ever-increasing intervals.
After a few years a random conversation touches upon the very subject.
To your delight you discover that you are able to hold forth on
Huygens, the man and his time.
To your surprise (and this is my contention [and experience]), you
also find yourself able to speak with some level of accuracy about
tangential matter -- eg. the theories he worked on -- without ever
having either added related facts to the database or dealt with the
subject matter in the intervening years.
In other words: recall of a whole web of interconnected pieces of
knowledge may be strengthened considerably by spaced repetition of
just a few of the central facts.
In my experience there's no specific 'encoding' procedure necessary.
I never put any thought into carefully selecting facts for the spaced
repetition treatment, yet the effect usually manifested itself. So,
yes, I would say it's a 'recall' phenomenon inasmuch as the brain
does all the heavy lifting.
I wrote a program I fancifully called 'Human Unit Tests' to aid me in my studies (learning a diverse set of constants for biophysics). I can very much attest to the effectiveness of spaced repetition.
But, /boy/, do you need to stay on the ball. You can't really afford a cavalier, let's-see attitude with this (given any non-trivial amount of items-to-be-memorized).
The review process needs to be as much part of a daily routine as workouts ... Yeah.
On the other hand, there's one reward that doesn't usually get mentioned (as in the fine article re-submitted here[0]): the strengthening of corollary knowledge (or coordinate terms, for the linguistically inclined).
I simply cannot wrap my head around the direction of the Unicode discourse.
We're discussing the appropriate code-point for different smiley faces,
obscure electrical symbols[0] or, in the present case, half stars to express
film or book ratings, yet we have no complete set of sub- and superscripts!
Am I mistaken in thinking it odd, that there's a complete Klingon alphabet but no
representation whatsoever for most Greek or Latin subscripts? Or what if, heaven forbid,
I'd want to use a 'b' index/subscript? Tough! Not even the "phonetic extensions",
where subscript-i comes from, provides it.
Surely there's the one or two actual scientists on the Unicode consortium?
Or even the one odd soul still sporting a notion of consistency who finds it
only logical to provide a "subscript b" if there's a "subscript a"?
which iterates over all files given on the command-line (or stdin) and
I am aware that -n and -p are mutually exclusive, but as -p overrides -n, it's seems simpler to just keep 'plane' in mind and remove the 'p' if necessary.