We have multiple people working on the same textgrid file and would like to combine it into a larger one. The textgird file has eight tiers. I would like to combine the textgrids files without messing up the tiers. I would like to do something like |x|- + -|x| into |x|x| for each of the eight tiers. Is it possible to do that? Thanks.
Related
I have some monthly NetCDF files that I would like to concatenate into one to use some of the movie making abilities of Panoply. The original files do not have a time variable, but NCO seems to get easily around it using
ncecat -u time file1.nc file2.nc file3.nc All_files.nc
as described in this post.
However, when I open the new file, the variables that were Geo2D in the original files have turned into plain 2D variables, and I can't use some of the overlays offered by Panoply such as country borders.
Is this
1) normal and there is no way around it, or
2) am I doing something wrong, or
3) is there something that should be added to the original files to conserve the info from the Geo2D format?
I've got three bash scripts in three different sibling directories.
The first few lines of each do some setup, different between each one.
The last twenty or so lines of the scripts are character for character identical, processing and comparing the files constructed in the first bit.
What I'd like to do is to put the last twenty lines in, say ../common.bash, and do something like
#include "../common.bash"
in each of the three scripts, so as to avoid having to make the same changes in three places every time I fiddle.
So far my best guess is to use cat to construct the scripts out of the four morally-independent pieces.
Is there a better way?
Use the source.
source /path/to/common.bash
You shouldn't use a relative path, because it will be interpreted relative to the user's working directory, not the location of the script.
Use meld
source is probably the answer I wanted, but actually in this case I've found that it's best to use meld to view the three files side by side, and to use meld to propagate favourite changes.
The advantage is that when working on one file, I can see the whole thing at once.
But it won't scale to the inevitable fourth copy, so at that point I'll use source, I guess.
So I was spliting some large files, everything worked properly until a file of 81GB came to scene. The split command seems that made its job, but the last files has a non correlated name. Look at the right bottom of picture.
And I'm using the command like this:
split -b 125M ./2014.txt 2014/2014_
Anyone knows why instead of create the file 2014_za created the 2014_zaaa?
You can only have 676 files named [a-z][a-z], while your command required more.
Here are some options for what split could do:
Crash.
This is the behavior mandated by POSIX, and followed by macOS.
Start writing larger suffixes.
This is a bad choice because after _zz comes _aaa, but now the files will show up in the wrong order in ls and cat * will no longer join them in correct order.
Save the last range, _z, for longer suffixes.
This is a good choice because after _yz comes _zaaa, which has room to grow while still remaining in alphabetical order. This is what GNU does, and the behavior you're seeing.
If you want all the names to be uniform without triggering any of these behaviors, just use a larger suffix length with -a 6 to ensure you have enough room.
When I receive a drawing, I wish to remove all definitions from previous drafters, such as blocks, styles, layers, groups, xrefs, etc. in order to retain only primitives: texts, lines and arcs, in summary, a single flat drawing.
This is a very routinary activity, and I've found many dissimilar answers through internet, often involving non-standard, non-canonical, combinations of the following commands:
LAYMRG, PURGE
AUDIT
SELECTSIMILAR
WBLOCK
EXPLODE, XPLODE
DIMSTYLE, BATTMAN
DXFOUT, WMFOUT, DXFIN, WMFIN
BURST
Unfortunately, after applying most them, the result sometimes retain many non-purgable objects, including:
Non-explodable blocks,
Dimensions with their own styles,
Blocks losing their text attributes (by XPLODE),
Changed fonts (by WMFOUT),
Do AutoCAD have some canonical way to do this?
I think it's not so easy. If there is such command, I don't know that, but...
In situation You described, You should attach drawing You get as External reference XRef . In that case, You can make such drawing displayed as darker or lighter, but without so many changes in drawing. Also if You get new version of such file, for example because Architect make some changes, You don't need to do anything, maybe only reload such file and new version is displayed.
You will have two separate files:
base, for example architecture
branch , for example electircal, HVAC, and so on. Your work.
Of corse You can think about some script (scr file of LISP) which will run all commands You want just by run one command. Create such script is not very complicated, but In my opinion it's easy and flexible enought to use XRef.
I'm using Windows and Notepad++ to separate file in txt. I have 2 files which is I have to merge it side by side or line by line for my data analysis.
Here is the example:
file1.txt
Abcdefghijk
abcdefghijk
file2.txt
123456
123456
then the output I want is like this:
Abcdefghijk123456
abcdefghijk123456
in the next file or output file. Does anybody here know how to do this?
Your question answered here by TheMadTechnician. Using powershell, you should take both source files (1 and 2) as arrays of lines. Then comes simple cycle, like "merge line x from file1 with line x from file2 as long you have some lines in file1".
Unfortunately its impossible with pure cmd.
#riki.. you could also write a batch program to do this pro grammatically. There should probably be no limit over the number of lines.
It may depend on the number of lines you're having in each files. I suggest to copy paste the same if it is less than 50 lines.
Otherwise,
use some powerful languages like python, c,php etc. And make it run before performing data analysis.
There is a free utility you can download and run on your computer, called txtcollector. I read about it here. I used it because I had a whole folder of files to concatenate. It was a breeze. The only slight imperfection I noticed was that I couldn't paste in the path to the specific folder in the first step (choosing the folder where the files to be concatenated were). However, I could do this when choosing where to save the result.