How to open copied file by VI
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Say, I have 'a.txt'. I would like to copy the file and open the newly copied file using VI.
cp a.txt b.txt
vi b.txt
How to combine the two command in a command?
bash
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Say, I have 'a.txt'. I would like to copy the file and open the newly copied file using VI.
cp a.txt b.txt
vi b.txt
How to combine the two command in a command?
bash
13
Hmm IâÂÂve got to ask: why?!
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:20
@Rudolph Because of the curiosity and laziness. In addition, I think someday, I can apply the method to the other problems.
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:27
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Say, I have 'a.txt'. I would like to copy the file and open the newly copied file using VI.
cp a.txt b.txt
vi b.txt
How to combine the two command in a command?
bash
Say, I have 'a.txt'. I would like to copy the file and open the newly copied file using VI.
cp a.txt b.txt
vi b.txt
How to combine the two command in a command?
bash
bash
edited Aug 15 at 7:53
msp9011
3,46643862
3,46643862
asked Aug 15 at 7:49
comphys
8116
8116
13
Hmm IâÂÂve got to ask: why?!
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:20
@Rudolph Because of the curiosity and laziness. In addition, I think someday, I can apply the method to the other problems.
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:27
add a comment |Â
13
Hmm IâÂÂve got to ask: why?!
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:20
@Rudolph Because of the curiosity and laziness. In addition, I think someday, I can apply the method to the other problems.
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:27
13
13
Hmm IâÂÂve got to ask: why?!
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:20
Hmm IâÂÂve got to ask: why?!
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:20
@Rudolph Because of the curiosity and laziness. In addition, I think someday, I can apply the method to the other problems.
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:27
@Rudolph Because of the curiosity and laziness. In addition, I think someday, I can apply the method to the other problems.
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:27
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
You can use vi itself to do the copy, by opening a.txt then saving the contents to b.txt (effectively copying it) and then switching to b.txt.
Putting it all together:
vi -c 'w b.txt' -c 'e#' a.txt
This is equivalent to running vi a.txt
, followed by the :w b.txt
command (inside vi
), which will save the contents to a file named b.txt. But vi will still be editing a.txt at this point, so you follow up with the :e#
command, which means "edit alternative file" (or "edit last file") and given vi has just touched b.txt, it will switch to editing that file.
Im not sure if vi hassaveas
(it may have come from vim) but it would shorten the command.
â D. Ben Knoble
Aug 15 at 12:57
3
The:f
command may be useful - that will just change the filename, and the user can write it the normal way at the end of the editing session with:wq
.
â Random832
Aug 15 at 21:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
using &&
operator
cp a.txt b.txt && vi b.txt
Thank you. Is there any other way where I can type b.txt only once?
â comphys
Aug 15 at 7:57
@comphyssrc=a.txt; dst=b.txt; cp "$src" "$dst" && vi "$dst"
â Kirill Bulygin
Aug 15 at 9:43
5
@comphys Yes we actually can:cp a.txt b.txt && vi $_
. Grump reminded me of this in another comment thread.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
You can write your own function and use that function.
In the below example, you can use cp1 as a command.
example:
$ cat test.txt
function cp1()
source_file=$1
destination_file=$2
cp "$source_file" "$destination_file"
vi "$destination"
$ . ./test.txt
$ cp1 a.txt b.txt
I would like to know an ad hoc method which can be written in one command line. Anyway, thank you for the helpful answer.
â comphys
Aug 15 at 8:47
2
@comphys If this is something you do frequently, why not define a function for it? If you don't do it enough to need a function, why does it even matter?
â Barmar
Aug 15 at 17:27
@Barmar I don't frequently encounter this kind of situation. However, I wanted to know the answer to apply it to the other similar situation and the curiosity makes me ask!
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
If you want a way to save you typing you can use bash build in functionality to repeat the last word of the previous command. You can do this by ALT+.
> cp a.txt b.txt
> vi ALT+.
Very useful, and reminds you of the dot operator of vim.
Happy golfing.
1
Hmm this doesnâÂÂt seem to work for me. Is this a readline Emacs command (IâÂÂm working in vim mode)?
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:22
1
!$ may be better than ALT+.
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:30
@Grump That's indeed an interesting suggestion. I haven't thought of using that stuff. Actually $_ is more interesting, because it repeats the last executed command as opposed to the last command in history (that is what !$ does). But why would it be better. If we count keystrokes it is more and I also think the special symbols are a bit hard to reach.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:40
1
@KonradRudolph Indeed, this is for the emacs readline mode. Vim mode has the same functionality, but since . already has a function underscore is used here. ALT + Underscore also works in emacs mode btw.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:42
2
!$ is the last argument from the last command in history. I suggest it because it works in more shells and doesn't rely on keybindings
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:43
 |Â
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
You can use vi itself to do the copy, by opening a.txt then saving the contents to b.txt (effectively copying it) and then switching to b.txt.
Putting it all together:
vi -c 'w b.txt' -c 'e#' a.txt
This is equivalent to running vi a.txt
, followed by the :w b.txt
command (inside vi
), which will save the contents to a file named b.txt. But vi will still be editing a.txt at this point, so you follow up with the :e#
command, which means "edit alternative file" (or "edit last file") and given vi has just touched b.txt, it will switch to editing that file.
Im not sure if vi hassaveas
(it may have come from vim) but it would shorten the command.
â D. Ben Knoble
Aug 15 at 12:57
3
The:f
command may be useful - that will just change the filename, and the user can write it the normal way at the end of the editing session with:wq
.
â Random832
Aug 15 at 21:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
You can use vi itself to do the copy, by opening a.txt then saving the contents to b.txt (effectively copying it) and then switching to b.txt.
Putting it all together:
vi -c 'w b.txt' -c 'e#' a.txt
This is equivalent to running vi a.txt
, followed by the :w b.txt
command (inside vi
), which will save the contents to a file named b.txt. But vi will still be editing a.txt at this point, so you follow up with the :e#
command, which means "edit alternative file" (or "edit last file") and given vi has just touched b.txt, it will switch to editing that file.
Im not sure if vi hassaveas
(it may have come from vim) but it would shorten the command.
â D. Ben Knoble
Aug 15 at 12:57
3
The:f
command may be useful - that will just change the filename, and the user can write it the normal way at the end of the editing session with:wq
.
â Random832
Aug 15 at 21:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
You can use vi itself to do the copy, by opening a.txt then saving the contents to b.txt (effectively copying it) and then switching to b.txt.
Putting it all together:
vi -c 'w b.txt' -c 'e#' a.txt
This is equivalent to running vi a.txt
, followed by the :w b.txt
command (inside vi
), which will save the contents to a file named b.txt. But vi will still be editing a.txt at this point, so you follow up with the :e#
command, which means "edit alternative file" (or "edit last file") and given vi has just touched b.txt, it will switch to editing that file.
You can use vi itself to do the copy, by opening a.txt then saving the contents to b.txt (effectively copying it) and then switching to b.txt.
Putting it all together:
vi -c 'w b.txt' -c 'e#' a.txt
This is equivalent to running vi a.txt
, followed by the :w b.txt
command (inside vi
), which will save the contents to a file named b.txt. But vi will still be editing a.txt at this point, so you follow up with the :e#
command, which means "edit alternative file" (or "edit last file") and given vi has just touched b.txt, it will switch to editing that file.
answered Aug 15 at 8:01
Filipe Brandenburger
3,734622
3,734622
Im not sure if vi hassaveas
(it may have come from vim) but it would shorten the command.
â D. Ben Knoble
Aug 15 at 12:57
3
The:f
command may be useful - that will just change the filename, and the user can write it the normal way at the end of the editing session with:wq
.
â Random832
Aug 15 at 21:03
add a comment |Â
Im not sure if vi hassaveas
(it may have come from vim) but it would shorten the command.
â D. Ben Knoble
Aug 15 at 12:57
3
The:f
command may be useful - that will just change the filename, and the user can write it the normal way at the end of the editing session with:wq
.
â Random832
Aug 15 at 21:03
Im not sure if vi has
saveas
(it may have come from vim) but it would shorten the command.â D. Ben Knoble
Aug 15 at 12:57
Im not sure if vi has
saveas
(it may have come from vim) but it would shorten the command.â D. Ben Knoble
Aug 15 at 12:57
3
3
The
:f
command may be useful - that will just change the filename, and the user can write it the normal way at the end of the editing session with :wq
.â Random832
Aug 15 at 21:03
The
:f
command may be useful - that will just change the filename, and the user can write it the normal way at the end of the editing session with :wq
.â Random832
Aug 15 at 21:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
using &&
operator
cp a.txt b.txt && vi b.txt
Thank you. Is there any other way where I can type b.txt only once?
â comphys
Aug 15 at 7:57
@comphyssrc=a.txt; dst=b.txt; cp "$src" "$dst" && vi "$dst"
â Kirill Bulygin
Aug 15 at 9:43
5
@comphys Yes we actually can:cp a.txt b.txt && vi $_
. Grump reminded me of this in another comment thread.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
using &&
operator
cp a.txt b.txt && vi b.txt
Thank you. Is there any other way where I can type b.txt only once?
â comphys
Aug 15 at 7:57
@comphyssrc=a.txt; dst=b.txt; cp "$src" "$dst" && vi "$dst"
â Kirill Bulygin
Aug 15 at 9:43
5
@comphys Yes we actually can:cp a.txt b.txt && vi $_
. Grump reminded me of this in another comment thread.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
using &&
operator
cp a.txt b.txt && vi b.txt
using &&
operator
cp a.txt b.txt && vi b.txt
answered Aug 15 at 7:52
msp9011
3,46643862
3,46643862
Thank you. Is there any other way where I can type b.txt only once?
â comphys
Aug 15 at 7:57
@comphyssrc=a.txt; dst=b.txt; cp "$src" "$dst" && vi "$dst"
â Kirill Bulygin
Aug 15 at 9:43
5
@comphys Yes we actually can:cp a.txt b.txt && vi $_
. Grump reminded me of this in another comment thread.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:44
add a comment |Â
Thank you. Is there any other way where I can type b.txt only once?
â comphys
Aug 15 at 7:57
@comphyssrc=a.txt; dst=b.txt; cp "$src" "$dst" && vi "$dst"
â Kirill Bulygin
Aug 15 at 9:43
5
@comphys Yes we actually can:cp a.txt b.txt && vi $_
. Grump reminded me of this in another comment thread.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:44
Thank you. Is there any other way where I can type b.txt only once?
â comphys
Aug 15 at 7:57
Thank you. Is there any other way where I can type b.txt only once?
â comphys
Aug 15 at 7:57
@comphys
src=a.txt; dst=b.txt; cp "$src" "$dst" && vi "$dst"
â Kirill Bulygin
Aug 15 at 9:43
@comphys
src=a.txt; dst=b.txt; cp "$src" "$dst" && vi "$dst"
â Kirill Bulygin
Aug 15 at 9:43
5
5
@comphys Yes we actually can:
cp a.txt b.txt && vi $_
. Grump reminded me of this in another comment thread.â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:44
@comphys Yes we actually can:
cp a.txt b.txt && vi $_
. Grump reminded me of this in another comment thread.â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
You can write your own function and use that function.
In the below example, you can use cp1 as a command.
example:
$ cat test.txt
function cp1()
source_file=$1
destination_file=$2
cp "$source_file" "$destination_file"
vi "$destination"
$ . ./test.txt
$ cp1 a.txt b.txt
I would like to know an ad hoc method which can be written in one command line. Anyway, thank you for the helpful answer.
â comphys
Aug 15 at 8:47
2
@comphys If this is something you do frequently, why not define a function for it? If you don't do it enough to need a function, why does it even matter?
â Barmar
Aug 15 at 17:27
@Barmar I don't frequently encounter this kind of situation. However, I wanted to know the answer to apply it to the other similar situation and the curiosity makes me ask!
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
You can write your own function and use that function.
In the below example, you can use cp1 as a command.
example:
$ cat test.txt
function cp1()
source_file=$1
destination_file=$2
cp "$source_file" "$destination_file"
vi "$destination"
$ . ./test.txt
$ cp1 a.txt b.txt
I would like to know an ad hoc method which can be written in one command line. Anyway, thank you for the helpful answer.
â comphys
Aug 15 at 8:47
2
@comphys If this is something you do frequently, why not define a function for it? If you don't do it enough to need a function, why does it even matter?
â Barmar
Aug 15 at 17:27
@Barmar I don't frequently encounter this kind of situation. However, I wanted to know the answer to apply it to the other similar situation and the curiosity makes me ask!
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
You can write your own function and use that function.
In the below example, you can use cp1 as a command.
example:
$ cat test.txt
function cp1()
source_file=$1
destination_file=$2
cp "$source_file" "$destination_file"
vi "$destination"
$ . ./test.txt
$ cp1 a.txt b.txt
You can write your own function and use that function.
In the below example, you can use cp1 as a command.
example:
$ cat test.txt
function cp1()
source_file=$1
destination_file=$2
cp "$source_file" "$destination_file"
vi "$destination"
$ . ./test.txt
$ cp1 a.txt b.txt
edited Aug 15 at 19:03
Jens
1,0221128
1,0221128
answered Aug 15 at 8:15
Kamaraj
2,9231413
2,9231413
I would like to know an ad hoc method which can be written in one command line. Anyway, thank you for the helpful answer.
â comphys
Aug 15 at 8:47
2
@comphys If this is something you do frequently, why not define a function for it? If you don't do it enough to need a function, why does it even matter?
â Barmar
Aug 15 at 17:27
@Barmar I don't frequently encounter this kind of situation. However, I wanted to know the answer to apply it to the other similar situation and the curiosity makes me ask!
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:08
add a comment |Â
I would like to know an ad hoc method which can be written in one command line. Anyway, thank you for the helpful answer.
â comphys
Aug 15 at 8:47
2
@comphys If this is something you do frequently, why not define a function for it? If you don't do it enough to need a function, why does it even matter?
â Barmar
Aug 15 at 17:27
@Barmar I don't frequently encounter this kind of situation. However, I wanted to know the answer to apply it to the other similar situation and the curiosity makes me ask!
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:08
I would like to know an ad hoc method which can be written in one command line. Anyway, thank you for the helpful answer.
â comphys
Aug 15 at 8:47
I would like to know an ad hoc method which can be written in one command line. Anyway, thank you for the helpful answer.
â comphys
Aug 15 at 8:47
2
2
@comphys If this is something you do frequently, why not define a function for it? If you don't do it enough to need a function, why does it even matter?
â Barmar
Aug 15 at 17:27
@comphys If this is something you do frequently, why not define a function for it? If you don't do it enough to need a function, why does it even matter?
â Barmar
Aug 15 at 17:27
@Barmar I don't frequently encounter this kind of situation. However, I wanted to know the answer to apply it to the other similar situation and the curiosity makes me ask!
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:08
@Barmar I don't frequently encounter this kind of situation. However, I wanted to know the answer to apply it to the other similar situation and the curiosity makes me ask!
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
If you want a way to save you typing you can use bash build in functionality to repeat the last word of the previous command. You can do this by ALT+.
> cp a.txt b.txt
> vi ALT+.
Very useful, and reminds you of the dot operator of vim.
Happy golfing.
1
Hmm this doesnâÂÂt seem to work for me. Is this a readline Emacs command (IâÂÂm working in vim mode)?
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:22
1
!$ may be better than ALT+.
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:30
@Grump That's indeed an interesting suggestion. I haven't thought of using that stuff. Actually $_ is more interesting, because it repeats the last executed command as opposed to the last command in history (that is what !$ does). But why would it be better. If we count keystrokes it is more and I also think the special symbols are a bit hard to reach.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:40
1
@KonradRudolph Indeed, this is for the emacs readline mode. Vim mode has the same functionality, but since . already has a function underscore is used here. ALT + Underscore also works in emacs mode btw.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:42
2
!$ is the last argument from the last command in history. I suggest it because it works in more shells and doesn't rely on keybindings
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:43
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
If you want a way to save you typing you can use bash build in functionality to repeat the last word of the previous command. You can do this by ALT+.
> cp a.txt b.txt
> vi ALT+.
Very useful, and reminds you of the dot operator of vim.
Happy golfing.
1
Hmm this doesnâÂÂt seem to work for me. Is this a readline Emacs command (IâÂÂm working in vim mode)?
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:22
1
!$ may be better than ALT+.
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:30
@Grump That's indeed an interesting suggestion. I haven't thought of using that stuff. Actually $_ is more interesting, because it repeats the last executed command as opposed to the last command in history (that is what !$ does). But why would it be better. If we count keystrokes it is more and I also think the special symbols are a bit hard to reach.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:40
1
@KonradRudolph Indeed, this is for the emacs readline mode. Vim mode has the same functionality, but since . already has a function underscore is used here. ALT + Underscore also works in emacs mode btw.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:42
2
!$ is the last argument from the last command in history. I suggest it because it works in more shells and doesn't rely on keybindings
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:43
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
If you want a way to save you typing you can use bash build in functionality to repeat the last word of the previous command. You can do this by ALT+.
> cp a.txt b.txt
> vi ALT+.
Very useful, and reminds you of the dot operator of vim.
Happy golfing.
If you want a way to save you typing you can use bash build in functionality to repeat the last word of the previous command. You can do this by ALT+.
> cp a.txt b.txt
> vi ALT+.
Very useful, and reminds you of the dot operator of vim.
Happy golfing.
answered Aug 15 at 8:24
Hielke Walinga
1664
1664
1
Hmm this doesnâÂÂt seem to work for me. Is this a readline Emacs command (IâÂÂm working in vim mode)?
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:22
1
!$ may be better than ALT+.
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:30
@Grump That's indeed an interesting suggestion. I haven't thought of using that stuff. Actually $_ is more interesting, because it repeats the last executed command as opposed to the last command in history (that is what !$ does). But why would it be better. If we count keystrokes it is more and I also think the special symbols are a bit hard to reach.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:40
1
@KonradRudolph Indeed, this is for the emacs readline mode. Vim mode has the same functionality, but since . already has a function underscore is used here. ALT + Underscore also works in emacs mode btw.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:42
2
!$ is the last argument from the last command in history. I suggest it because it works in more shells and doesn't rely on keybindings
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:43
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1
Hmm this doesnâÂÂt seem to work for me. Is this a readline Emacs command (IâÂÂm working in vim mode)?
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:22
1
!$ may be better than ALT+.
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:30
@Grump That's indeed an interesting suggestion. I haven't thought of using that stuff. Actually $_ is more interesting, because it repeats the last executed command as opposed to the last command in history (that is what !$ does). But why would it be better. If we count keystrokes it is more and I also think the special symbols are a bit hard to reach.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:40
1
@KonradRudolph Indeed, this is for the emacs readline mode. Vim mode has the same functionality, but since . already has a function underscore is used here. ALT + Underscore also works in emacs mode btw.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:42
2
!$ is the last argument from the last command in history. I suggest it because it works in more shells and doesn't rely on keybindings
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:43
1
1
Hmm this doesnâÂÂt seem to work for me. Is this a readline Emacs command (IâÂÂm working in vim mode)?
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:22
Hmm this doesnâÂÂt seem to work for me. Is this a readline Emacs command (IâÂÂm working in vim mode)?
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:22
1
1
!$ may be better than ALT+.
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:30
!$ may be better than ALT+.
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:30
@Grump That's indeed an interesting suggestion. I haven't thought of using that stuff. Actually $_ is more interesting, because it repeats the last executed command as opposed to the last command in history (that is what !$ does). But why would it be better. If we count keystrokes it is more and I also think the special symbols are a bit hard to reach.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:40
@Grump That's indeed an interesting suggestion. I haven't thought of using that stuff. Actually $_ is more interesting, because it repeats the last executed command as opposed to the last command in history (that is what !$ does). But why would it be better. If we count keystrokes it is more and I also think the special symbols are a bit hard to reach.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:40
1
1
@KonradRudolph Indeed, this is for the emacs readline mode. Vim mode has the same functionality, but since . already has a function underscore is used here. ALT + Underscore also works in emacs mode btw.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:42
@KonradRudolph Indeed, this is for the emacs readline mode. Vim mode has the same functionality, but since . already has a function underscore is used here. ALT + Underscore also works in emacs mode btw.
â Hielke Walinga
Aug 15 at 12:42
2
2
!$ is the last argument from the last command in history. I suggest it because it works in more shells and doesn't rely on keybindings
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:43
!$ is the last argument from the last command in history. I suggest it because it works in more shells and doesn't rely on keybindings
â Grump
Aug 15 at 12:43
 |Â
show 3 more comments
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462686%2fhow-to-open-copied-file-by-vi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
13
Hmm IâÂÂve got to ask: why?!
â Konrad Rudolph
Aug 15 at 10:20
@Rudolph Because of the curiosity and laziness. In addition, I think someday, I can apply the method to the other problems.
â comphys
Aug 26 at 3:27