Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #5167 > unrolled thread

variable-length strings

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  variable-length strings Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-01 03:36 -0600
    Re: variable-length strings ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 07:13 -0700
      Re: variable-length strings Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-02 10:54 -0600
    Re: variable-length strings "George Mpouras" <nospam.gravitalsun@hotmail.com.nospam> - 2011-06-01 17:01 +0300
    Re: variable-length strings "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-06-02 15:33 +0200
    Re: variable-length strings "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-06-02 15:44 +0200
      Re: bdiff Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-08 21:59 -0600
        Re: bdiff Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 16:08 +1200
          Re: bdiff Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-08 22:20 -0600
            Re: bdiff Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-09 02:57 -0600
              Re: bdiff Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 11:10 +0200
                Re: bdiff Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-09 13:19 -0600
                  Re: bdiff James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-09 19:32 +0000
                  Re: bdiff Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-09 19:32 +0000
                    Re: bdiff Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-09 15:28 -0600
                  Re: bdiff blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-06-09 12:33 -0700
                    Re: bdiff Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-09 15:15 -0600
                      Re: bdiff pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-06-09 22:17 +0000
                        Re: bdiff blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-20 19:14 +0000
                          Re: bdiff Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-20 18:43 -0500
                            Re: bdiff blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-21 20:39 +0000
                              Re: bdiff Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-06-21 18:38 -0400
                            Re: bdiff Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-21 18:11 -0500
                            Re: bdiff Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-22 15:51 -0700
                          Re: bdiff Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-21 07:49 -0500
                            Re: bdiff blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-21 20:40 +0000
                              Re: bdiff superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-06-22 09:59 +0200
                                Re: bdiff blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 19:57 +0000
                                  Re: bdiff superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-06-23 21:16 +0200
                                    Re: bdiff blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 19:36 +0000
                                      Re: bdiff superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-06-24 22:48 +0200
                                        Re: bdiff blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-24 21:17 +0000
                                        Re: bdiff Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-24 17:20 -0500
                              Re: bdiff blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 19:55 +0000
                            Re: bdiff Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-21 21:40 -0400
                              Re: bdiff Azazel <azazel@remove.azazel.net> - 2011-06-22 09:06 -0500
                                Re: bdiff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-06-22 16:47 +0100
                                  Re: bdiff Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-22 11:23 -0500
                  Re: bdiff Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-09 21:37 +0000
              Re: bdiff bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) - 2011-06-19 06:10 -0500
        Re: bdiff Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-09 07:13 -0400
          Re: bdiff Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-09 13:30 -0600
            Re: bdiff Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-09 13:29 -0700
              Re: bdiff Uno <merrilljensen@q.com> - 2011-06-09 21:11 -0700
                Re: bdiff "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-06-09 23:58 -0400
                  Re: bdiff Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-12 00:47 -0600
                    Re: bdiff Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-12 07:53 +0000
                      Re: bdiff Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-12 12:02 -0500
                    Re: bdiff Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-12 01:24 -0700
                    Re: bdiff Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-12 12:18 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#6569 — Re: bdiff

In article <00mvv69r0ignorrcegh7au2k9sbldjij26@4ax.com>,
Robert Wessel  <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2011 19:14:33 GMT, blmblm@myrealbox.com
> <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >In article <isrgpj$4qq$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
> >Alan Curry <pacman@kosh.dhis.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> >> The dinosaurs were a rowdy bunch, and they fought over how to properly store
> >> text on non-typewriter-like media (like tapes and disks), but they were all
> >> able to understand the typewriter-like ASCII-with-CRLF format. It was the
> >> universal text representation. And it was incorporated into FTP as the
> >> standard format for transmission of text files.
> >
> >I just made a quick attempt to confirm my recollections about
> >whether the IBM 360/370 architecture included support for ASCII,
> >and -- it's kind of interesting that the Wikipedia articles say
> >that the 360 architecture included some features intended to
> >support ASCII (which had not been finalized), but that these were
> >not used, or not used widely, and the 370 architecture dropped at
> >least some of them.  I wonder whether there was some consternation
> >when it became desirable to support FTP, it being ASCII-based.
> 
> 
> 
> S/360 included a mode bit that altered the behavior of a handful of
> instructions that were sensitive to the character set. This was mostly
> the decimal instructions which encoded the sign in a nibble of the
> least significant byte.  For example, in unpacked ("display") form,
> the decimal digits were 0xf0-0xf9 in EBCDIC.  Thus +123 could be
> encoded as 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf3.  A -123 would be encoded 0xf1, xf2, 0xd3.
> (Several other values were valid for the sign as well.)  So obviously
> the instructions that converted between unpacked to packed format were
> sensitive to the character set.
> 
> In any event, it was a modest behavior change to a few instructions.
> 
> And ASCII wasn't really cooked by the time IBM started development of
> the OS's, so they ended up sticking with EBCDIC.
> 
> That mode bit was reused to enable "Extended Control" mode on the
> S/370, which instead changed to format of the PSW and a few other
> things (like some of the fixed location in low-core), that was a
> prerequisite to enabling virtual memory.  So ASCII mode went entirely
> away with the S/370.
> 
> In the last ~15 years the ISA has grown a number of instructions
> designed to ease the processing of ASCII data.  Unicode too, as well
> as instructions for converting to/from little-endian, and things like
> C-style strings.

Thanks for filling in some of the details!  That all sounds pretty
consistent with what the Wikipedia articles say, for what that's 
worth.  Interesting stuff -- though possibly more so to those of who
actually remember those days.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6583 — Re: bdiff

On 6/21/2011 16:39, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> In article<00mvv69r0ignorrcegh7au2k9sbldjij26@4ax.com>,
> Robert Wessel<robertwessel2@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> On 20 Jun 2011 19:14:33 GMT, blmblm@myrealbox.com
>> <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> In article<isrgpj$4qq$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>> Alan Curry<pacman@kosh.dhis.org>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> The dinosaurs were a rowdy bunch, and they fought over how to properly store
>>>> text on non-typewriter-like media (like tapes and disks), but they were all
>>>> able to understand the typewriter-like ASCII-with-CRLF format. It was the
>>>> universal text representation. And it was incorporated into FTP as the
>>>> standard format for transmission of text files.
>>>
>>> I just made a quick attempt to confirm my recollections about
>>> whether the IBM 360/370 architecture included support for ASCII,
>>> and -- it's kind of interesting that the Wikipedia articles say
>>> that the 360 architecture included some features intended to
>>> support ASCII (which had not been finalized), but that these were
>>> not used, or not used widely, and the 370 architecture dropped at
>>> least some of them.  I wonder whether there was some consternation
>>> when it became desirable to support FTP, it being ASCII-based.
>>
>>
>>
>> S/360 included a mode bit that altered the behavior of a handful of
>> instructions that were sensitive to the character set. This was mostly
>> the decimal instructions which encoded the sign in a nibble of the
>> least significant byte.  For example, in unpacked ("display") form,
>> the decimal digits were 0xf0-0xf9 in EBCDIC.  Thus +123 could be
>> encoded as 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf3.  A -123 would be encoded 0xf1, xf2, 0xd3.
>> (Several other values were valid for the sign as well.)  So obviously
>> the instructions that converted between unpacked to packed format were
>> sensitive to the character set.
>>
>> In any event, it was a modest behavior change to a few instructions.
>>
>> And ASCII wasn't really cooked by the time IBM started development of
>> the OS's, so they ended up sticking with EBCDIC.
>>
>> That mode bit was reused to enable "Extended Control" mode on the
>> S/370, which instead changed to format of the PSW and a few other
>> things (like some of the fixed location in low-core), that was a
>> prerequisite to enabling virtual memory.  So ASCII mode went entirely
>> away with the S/370.
>>
>> In the last ~15 years the ISA has grown a number of instructions
>> designed to ease the processing of ASCII data.  Unicode too, as well
>> as instructions for converting to/from little-endian, and things like
>> C-style strings.
>
> Thanks for filling in some of the details!  That all sounds pretty
> consistent with what the Wikipedia articles say, for what that's
> worth.  Interesting stuff -- though possibly more so to those of who
> actually remember those days.
>
Those days? 1964? Everybody I know remembers them. :-)

-- 
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6586 — Re: bdiff

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:43:03 -0500, Robert Wessel
<robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 20 Jun 2011 19:14:33 GMT, blmblm@myrealbox.com
><blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <isrgpj$4qq$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>Alan Curry <pacman@kosh.dhis.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>> The dinosaurs were a rowdy bunch, and they fought over how to properly store
>>> text on non-typewriter-like media (like tapes and disks), but they were all
>>> able to understand the typewriter-like ASCII-with-CRLF format. It was the
>>> universal text representation. And it was incorporated into FTP as the
>>> standard format for transmission of text files.
>>
>>I just made a quick attempt to confirm my recollections about
>>whether the IBM 360/370 architecture included support for ASCII,
>>and -- it's kind of interesting that the Wikipedia articles say
>>that the 360 architecture included some features intended to
>>support ASCII (which had not been finalized), but that these were
>>not used, or not used widely, and the 370 architecture dropped at
>>least some of them.  I wonder whether there was some consternation
>>when it became desirable to support FTP, it being ASCII-based.
>
>
>
>S/360 included a mode bit that altered the behavior of a handful of
>instructions that were sensitive to the character set. This was mostly
>the decimal instructions which encoded the sign in a nibble of the
>least significant byte.  For example, in unpacked ("display") form,
>the decimal digits were 0xf0-0xf9 in EBCDIC.  Thus +123 could be
>encoded as 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf3.  A -123 would be encoded 0xf1, xf2, 0xd3.
>(Several other values were valid for the sign as well.)  So obviously
>the instructions that converted between unpacked to packed format were
>sensitive to the character set.
>
>In any event, it was a modest behavior change to a few instructions.
>
>And ASCII wasn't really cooked by the time IBM started development of
>the OS's, so they ended up sticking with EBCDIC.
>
>That mode bit was reused to enable "Extended Control" mode on the
>S/370, which instead changed to format of the PSW and a few other
>things (like some of the fixed location in low-core), that was a
>prerequisite to enabling virtual memory.  So ASCII mode went entirely
>away with the S/370.
>
>In the last ~15 years the ISA has grown a number of instructions
>designed to ease the processing of ASCII data.  Unicode too, as well
>as instructions for converting to/from little-endian, and things like
>C-style strings.


FWIW, the following is the sum total impact of ASCII mode on S/360. In
ASCII mode:

- Several instructions would accept the ASCII numeric zone value (0x3)
as an alternate positive sign on input (in EBCDIC mode, the 0xf was
accepted instead).  This included most of the instructions that
accepted packed decimal fields as input (AP, CP, CVB, DP, ED, EDMK,
MP, SP, ZAP - add, compare, convert-to-binary, divide, edit,
edit-and-mark, multiply, subtract, zero-and-add).  UNPK (unpack), the
other instruction with packed input,  just moved the sign nibble
around without regard for its value.

- All instructions except PACK that output packed values generated the
preferred signs (0xc, 0xd - +/-) in both modes.  That includes AP, CVD
(convert-to-decimal), DP, MP, SP and ZAP.  (So no impact.)

- PACK just moved signs and digits around without regard to their
content. (Again, no differences.)

- The three instructions that generated zoned (display) output (UNPK,
ED, EDMK), inserted the character-set specific zone as specified by
the mode bit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6678 — Re: bdiff

In article <00mvv69r0ignorrcegh7au2k9sbldjij26@4ax.com>,
 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And ASCII wasn't really cooked by the time IBM started development of
> the OS's, so they ended up sticking with EBCDIC.

That is being generous. ASR-33 teletypes using
proto-ASCII were everywhere. A version of ASCII was
promulgated in 1963.

-- 
Michael Press

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6556 — Re: bdiff

On 20-Jun-11 14:14, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> In article <isrgpj$4qq$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Alan Curry <pacman@kosh.dhis.org> wrote:
>> [If you're not old enough to have ever seen a typewriter, google up
>> an image of one now, or preferably a video of one in use.]
> 
> Good heavens -- are they really people who have never encountered a
> typewriter at all?  cue chorus of "I feel old", maybe ....

I'm in my early 30s, and the only _mechanical_ typewriter I've seen was
an antique originally owned by my grandfather, which my parents used in
college (long before I was born) and kept in storage for sentimental
reasons.  I saw a few electronic typewriters in school, but they had all
disappeared by the time I graduated, and I can't recall having seen any
since then; kids just a few years younger than I likely wouldn't
remember them at all.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6570 — Re: bdiff

In article <itq41h$nih$1@dont-email.me>,
Stephen Sprunk  <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 20-Jun-11 14:14, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > In article <isrgpj$4qq$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
> > Alan Curry <pacman@kosh.dhis.org> wrote:
> >> [If you're not old enough to have ever seen a typewriter, google up
> >> an image of one now, or preferably a video of one in use.]
> > 
> > Good heavens -- are they really people who have never encountered a
> > typewriter at all?  cue chorus of "I feel old", maybe ....
> 
> I'm in my early 30s, and the only _mechanical_ typewriter I've seen was
> an antique originally owned by my grandfather, which my parents used in
> college (long before I was born) and kept in storage for sentimental
> reasons.  I saw a few electronic typewriters in school, but they had all
> disappeared by the time I graduated, and I can't recall having seen any
> since then; kids just a few years younger than I likely wouldn't
> remember them at all.

Probably typical ....  At my CPOE the support staff say they still
want one typewriter, since it's the best tool for one or a few
form-filling-out jobs.  I'd have thought maybe this would be true
at many offices, but maybe we're atypical!

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6596 — Re: bdiff

blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
> In article <itq41h$nih$1@dont-email.me>,
> Stephen Sprunk  <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 20-Jun-11 14:14, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
>>> In article <isrgpj$4qq$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>> Alan Curry <pacman@kosh.dhis.org> wrote:
>>>> [If you're not old enough to have ever seen a typewriter, google up
>>>> an image of one now, or preferably a video of one in use.]
>>> Good heavens -- are they really people who have never encountered a
>>> typewriter at all?  cue chorus of "I feel old", maybe ....
>> I'm in my early 30s, and the only _mechanical_ typewriter I've seen was
>> an antique originally owned by my grandfather, which my parents used in
>> college (long before I was born) and kept in storage for sentimental
>> reasons.  I saw a few electronic typewriters in school, but they had all
>> disappeared by the time I graduated, and I can't recall having seen any
>> since then; kids just a few years younger than I likely wouldn't
>> remember them at all.
> 
> Probably typical ....  At my CPOE the support staff say they still
> want one typewriter, since it's the best tool for one or a few
> form-filling-out jobs.

unless of course you substitute "one or a few" with "many" ...

bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6649 — Re: bdiff

In article <4e01a0c9$0$15667$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
> > In article <itq41h$nih$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Stephen Sprunk  <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:

[ snip ]

> >> I'm in my early 30s, and the only _mechanical_ typewriter I've seen was
> >> an antique originally owned by my grandfather, which my parents used in
> >> college (long before I was born) and kept in storage for sentimental
> >> reasons.  I saw a few electronic typewriters in school, but they had all
> >> disappeared by the time I graduated, and I can't recall having seen any
> >> since then; kids just a few years younger than I likely wouldn't
> >> remember them at all.
> > 
> > Probably typical ....  At my CPOE the support staff say they still
> > want one typewriter, since it's the best tool for one or a few
> > form-filling-out jobs.
> 
> unless of course you substitute "one or a few" with "many" ...

Not very important, I guess, but -- huh?  I'm not understanding
your point.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6751 — Re: bdiff

blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
> In article <4e01a0c9$0$15667$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
>> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
>>> In article <itq41h$nih$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Stephen Sprunk  <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
>>>> I'm in my early 30s, and the only _mechanical_ typewriter I've seen was
>>>> an antique originally owned by my grandfather, which my parents used in
>>>> college (long before I was born) and kept in storage for sentimental
>>>> reasons.  I saw a few electronic typewriters in school, but they had all
>>>> disappeared by the time I graduated, and I can't recall having seen any
>>>> since then; kids just a few years younger than I likely wouldn't
>>>> remember them at all.
>>> Probably typical ....  At my CPOE the support staff say they still
>>> want one typewriter, since it's the best tool for one or a few
>>> form-filling-out jobs.
>> unless of course you substitute "one or a few" with "many" ...
> 
> Not very important, I guess, but -- huh?  I'm not understanding
> your point.

suppose you had to fill several dozens of forms, or worse several 
hundreds (happened recently at my workplace).

they give you a bunch of paper forms, then you have to fill them, with 
data that is stored digitally somewhere, or that you have to firstly 
store for later usage (maybe some more forms are on the way).

see?

bye

-- 
Abbiamo dimostrato, per chi volesse comprendere che :
1y*x-->0 = -->1y.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6861 — Re: bdiff

In article <4e0390fa$0$15663$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
> > In article <4e01a0c9$0$15667$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> > superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
> >> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:

[ snip ]

> >>> Probably typical ....  At my CPOE the support staff say they still
> >>> want one typewriter, since it's the best tool for one or a few
> >>> form-filling-out jobs.
> >> unless of course you substitute "one or a few" with "many" ...
> > 
> > Not very important, I guess, but -- huh?  I'm not understanding
> > your point.
> 
> suppose you had to fill several dozens of forms, or worse several 
> hundreds (happened recently at my workplace).
> 
> they give you a bunch of paper forms, then you have to fill them, with 
> data that is stored digitally somewhere, or that you have to firstly 
> store for later usage (maybe some more forms are on the way).
> 
> see?

*Oh* ....  All is clear now; thanks.  

I *think* -- though I could be wrong -- that the typical use case
for our support staff involves, hm, I'm not sure what the term is,
but the physical form is not a single sheet of paper but a stack
of sheets, such that writing/typing on the top sheet results in
the writing/typing being copied onto the other sheets as well.
If one needed to fill out many of these, then ....  It would
certainly be tempting to put a bit of work into doing something
that would allow you to get the information directly from some
digital source; it's just not clear to me how you could print onto
the multicopy forms, and if you couldn't, whether a substitute
would be acceptable.

In the long term -- and probably not so long, really -- the people
who are still using those multicopy forms will probably replace
them with something more compatible with the digital world.  In the
short term, one does what one can, I guess.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6874 — Re: bdiff

blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
> In article <4e0390fa$0$15663$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
>> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
>>> In article <4e01a0c9$0$15667$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>>> superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
>>>> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
>>>>> Probably typical ....  At my CPOE the support staff say they still
>>>>> want one typewriter, since it's the best tool for one or a few
>>>>> form-filling-out jobs.
>>>> unless of course you substitute "one or a few" with "many" ...
>>> Not very important, I guess, but -- huh?  I'm not understanding
>>> your point.
>> suppose you had to fill several dozens of forms, or worse several 
>> hundreds (happened recently at my workplace).
>>
>> they give you a bunch of paper forms, then you have to fill them, with 
>> data that is stored digitally somewhere, or that you have to firstly 
>> store for later usage (maybe some more forms are on the way).
>>
>> see?
> 
> *Oh* ....  All is clear now; thanks.  
> 
> I *think* -- though I could be wrong -- that the typical use case
> for our support staff involves, hm, I'm not sure what the term is,
> but the physical form is not a single sheet of paper but a stack
> of sheets, such that writing/typing on the top sheet results in
> the writing/typing being copied onto the other sheets as well.
> If one needed to fill out many of these, then ....  It would
> certainly be tempting to put a bit of work into doing something
> that would allow you to get the information directly from some
> digital source; it's just not clear to me how you could print onto
> the multicopy forms, and if you couldn't, whether a substitute
> would be acceptable.
> 
> In the long term -- and probably not so long, really -- the people
> who are still using those multicopy forms will probably replace
> them with something more compatible with the digital world.  In the
> short term, one does what one can, I guess.

as far as i know, even banks abandoned multicopy (carbon copy) forms 
long ago. the birth of the laser printer rendered them obsolete, don't 
you think? they are a remnant of a time when secretaries had to use them 
to reduce typing time of copies and xeroxes were not available.

bye

-- 
La Tunze e' stata ampiamente dimostrata, ora sta a voi
scienziati doverla applicare.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6886 — Re: bdiff

In article <4e04f804$0$15665$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
> > In article <4e0390fa$0$15663$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> > superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
> >> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
> >>> In article <4e01a0c9$0$15667$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> >>> superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
> >>>> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
> > 
> > [ snip ]
> > 
> >>>>> Probably typical ....  At my CPOE the support staff say they still
> >>>>> want one typewriter, since it's the best tool for one or a few
> >>>>> form-filling-out jobs.
> >>>> unless of course you substitute "one or a few" with "many" ...
> >>> Not very important, I guess, but -- huh?  I'm not understanding
> >>> your point.
> >> suppose you had to fill several dozens of forms, or worse several 
> >> hundreds (happened recently at my workplace).
> >>
> >> they give you a bunch of paper forms, then you have to fill them, with 
> >> data that is stored digitally somewhere, or that you have to firstly 
> >> store for later usage (maybe some more forms are on the way).
> >>
> >> see?
> > 
> > *Oh* ....  All is clear now; thanks.  
> > 
> > I *think* -- though I could be wrong -- that the typical use case
> > for our support staff involves, hm, I'm not sure what the term is,
> > but the physical form is not a single sheet of paper but a stack
> > of sheets, such that writing/typing on the top sheet results in
> > the writing/typing being copied onto the other sheets as well.

[ snip ]

> > In the long term -- and probably not so long, really -- the people
> > who are still using those multicopy forms will probably replace
> > them with something more compatible with the digital world.  In the
> > short term, one does what one can, I guess.
> 
> as far as i know, even banks abandoned multicopy (carbon copy) forms 
> long ago. the birth of the laser printer rendered them obsolete, don't 
> you think? they are a remnant of a time when secretaries had to use them 
> to reduce typing time of copies and xeroxes were not available.

Obsolete or not, they are still in use for some things at my CPOE;
a few weeks ago I had a task that involved filling out about a
dozen of them, with a lot of information repeated on all of them,
and indeed it was very tedious [*].  I think this particular
aspect of the CPOE is in transition -- it was pretty much all
done with paper forms when I was hired, and over the years more
has transitioned to being done electronically, but the transition
is apparently not complete.  I would guess that there might be
other workplaces in which similar situations exist.  Possibly
it's more common in smaller organizations.

[*] Then again, this task was only necessary because I had made a
mistake that could have been avoided with better planning (details
not interesting enough to type up), and it made more work not
only for me but for a colleague, and I figured that maybe the
tedium was deserved ....

(Sorry about the long digression here, folks.  Maybe we're done
now, though?)

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6904 — Re: bdiff

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:48:01 +0200, superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz>
wrote:

>blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
>> In article <4e0390fa$0$15663$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>> superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
>>> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
>>>> In article <4e01a0c9$0$15667$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>>>> superpollo  <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> wrote:
>>>>> blmblm@myrealbox.com ha scritto:
>> 
>> [ snip ]
>> 
>>>>>> Probably typical ....  At my CPOE the support staff say they still
>>>>>> want one typewriter, since it's the best tool for one or a few
>>>>>> form-filling-out jobs.
>>>>> unless of course you substitute "one or a few" with "many" ...
>>>> Not very important, I guess, but -- huh?  I'm not understanding
>>>> your point.
>>> suppose you had to fill several dozens of forms, or worse several 
>>> hundreds (happened recently at my workplace).
>>>
>>> they give you a bunch of paper forms, then you have to fill them, with 
>>> data that is stored digitally somewhere, or that you have to firstly 
>>> store for later usage (maybe some more forms are on the way).
>>>
>>> see?
>> 
>> *Oh* ....  All is clear now; thanks.  
>> 
>> I *think* -- though I could be wrong -- that the typical use case
>> for our support staff involves, hm, I'm not sure what the term is,
>> but the physical form is not a single sheet of paper but a stack
>> of sheets, such that writing/typing on the top sheet results in
>> the writing/typing being copied onto the other sheets as well.
>> If one needed to fill out many of these, then ....  It would
>> certainly be tempting to put a bit of work into doing something
>> that would allow you to get the information directly from some
>> digital source; it's just not clear to me how you could print onto
>> the multicopy forms, and if you couldn't, whether a substitute
>> would be acceptable.
>> 
>> In the long term -- and probably not so long, really -- the people
>> who are still using those multicopy forms will probably replace
>> them with something more compatible with the digital world.  In the
>> short term, one does what one can, I guess.
>
>as far as i know, even banks abandoned multicopy (carbon copy) forms 
>long ago. the birth of the laser printer rendered them obsolete, don't 
>you think? they are a remnant of a time when secretaries had to use them 
>to reduce typing time of copies and xeroxes were not available.


Obsolete or not, they still exist.  Most car dealers still have impact
printers to print up their multi-part sales documents (and you can
still find a few new-build impact printers out there).  But they work
well for sales contracts in some cases, especially if it's done away
from your home base.  You can mark and annotate carbonless forms, and
all the copies get the same stuff.   You also see occasional use of
the multi-part credit card chits as well (often trades people do at
job).  And the occasional form is sometimes quicker to type (and
neater than hand writing it).

That being said, there's one typewriter here, back in a corner.  It
probably gets used two or three times per month.  And that was often
enough for us to replace the old broken-down one a couple of years
back.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6646 — Re: bdiff

In article <96ciedFmtvU1@mid.individual.net>,
Ian Collins  <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/22/11 08:40 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > In article<itq41h$nih$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Stephen Sprunk<stephen@sprunk.org>  wrote:

[ snip ]

> >> I'm in my early 30s, and the only _mechanical_ typewriter I've seen was
> >> an antique originally owned by my grandfather, which my parents used in
> >> college (long before I was born) and kept in storage for sentimental
> >> reasons.  I saw a few electronic typewriters in school, but they had all
> >> disappeared by the time I graduated, and I can't recall having seen any
> >> since then; kids just a few years younger than I likely wouldn't
> >> remember them at all.
> >
> > Probably typical ....  At my CPOE the support staff say they still
> > want one typewriter, since it's the best tool for one or a few
> > form-filling-out jobs.  I'd have thought maybe this would be true
> > at many offices, but maybe we're atypical!
> 
> These days people prefer to mess around for hours getting all the text 
> correctly lined up in their word processor.  It's called progress :)

:-) indeed -- but I *think* the jobs for which our support staff want
that typewriter involve actual paper forms for which a word processor
would not be a useful tool.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6589 — Re: bdiff

On 6/21/2011 8:49 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> [...]
> I'm in my early 30s, and the only _mechanical_ typewriter I've seen was
> an antique originally owned by my grandfather, which my parents used in
> college (long before I was born) and kept in storage for sentimental
> reasons.  I saw a few electronic typewriters in school, but they had all
> disappeared by the time I graduated, and I can't recall having seen any
> since then; kids just a few years younger than I likely wouldn't
> remember them at all.

     Kids a few years younger still wouldn't even notice the
misuse of the nominative case.

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6612 — Re: bdiff

On 2011-06-22, Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
> On 6/21/2011 8:49 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > [...]
> > I'm in my early 30s, and the only _mechanical_ typewriter I've seen
> > was an antique originally owned by my grandfather, which my parents
> > used in college (long before I was born) and kept in storage for
> > sentimental reasons.  I saw a few electronic typewriters in school,
> > but they had all disappeared by the time I graduated, and I can't
> > recall having seen any since then; kids just a few years younger
> > than I likely wouldn't remember them at all.
>
>      Kids a few years younger still wouldn't even notice the
> misuse of the nominative case.

OK, I'll bite. :) What misuse?  "Kids just a few years younger than I
[am]" is correct.

-- 
Az.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6618 — Re: bdiff

Azazel <azazel@remove.azazel.net> writes:

> On 2011-06-22, Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2011 8:49 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > I'm in my early 30s, and the only _mechanical_ typewriter I've seen
>> > was an antique originally owned by my grandfather, which my parents
>> > used in college (long before I was born) and kept in storage for
>> > sentimental reasons.  I saw a few electronic typewriters in school,
>> > but they had all disappeared by the time I graduated, and I can't
>> > recall having seen any since then; kids just a few years younger
>> > than I likely wouldn't remember them at all.
>>
>>      Kids a few years younger still wouldn't even notice the
>> misuse of the nominative case.
>
> OK, I'll bite. :) What misuse?  "Kids just a few years younger than I
> [am]" is correct.

<OT>
If the verb were there, then "I" would be unquestionably correct.
Without it, opinion is divided though not, I'd venture to say, 50/50.

The use of "I" forces "than" to be seen as a conjunction rather than a
preposition, and for some people that's fine -- the sentence is just an
elliptical form of the version with the verb ("am") present.  For
others, it sounds stilted and old fashioned.  I'd say that calling it
"misuse" is stretching the point but, which ever way you see it, I'd bet
that the younger the kids the _more_ likely they would be to spot is.
The trend is definitely away from anything that sounds so formal.

Without a following clause that needs a subject (i.e. when the verb "am"
is missing) the use of "me" forces "than" to be seen as a preposition.
This is nothing new (it's been happening for centuries) and I don't
think there can be any serious objection to it these days.  In that
sense, "me" is better here and I'd bet that most people would prefer it
over "I".

It's interesting to note that this conjunction/preposition distinction
sometimes makes a lot of difference.  In Henry VI, Part III the king
says:

  Then why should they love Edward more than me?

Had he said "than I" it would have meant something else entirely.
</OT>

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6624 — Re: bdiff

On 22-Jun-11 10:47, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Azazel <azazel@remove.azazel.net> writes:
>> On 2011-06-22, Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2011 8:49 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> kids just a few years younger than I likely wouldn't ...
>>>
>>>      Kids a few years younger still wouldn't even notice the
>>> misuse of the nominative case.
>>
>> OK, I'll bite. :) What misuse?  "Kids just a few years younger than I
>> [am]" is correct.
> 
> <OT>
> If the verb were there, then "I" would be unquestionably correct.
> Without it, opinion is divided though not, I'd venture to say, 50/50.
>
> The use of "I" forces "than" to be seen as a conjunction rather than a
> preposition, and for some people that's fine -- the sentence is just an
> elliptical form of the version with the verb ("am") present.

That is what was taught in my schools: the verb is implied and therefore
the nominative (aka subjective) case should be used.

> For others, it sounds stilted and old fashioned.  I'd say that calling
> it "misuse" is stretching the point but, which ever way you see it,
> I'd bet that the younger the kids the _more_ likely they would be to
> spot is.  The trend is definitely away from anything that sounds so
> formal.

Using the accusative (aka objective) case is definitely more common, to
the consternation of English teachers across the land.  I even use it
when the situation demands more informal language--but I do so with full
knowledge that it's "wrong".  OTOH, most of my generation has no clue
how to speak or write formally when required.

> Without a following clause that needs a subject (i.e. when the verb "am"
> is missing) the use of "me" forces "than" to be seen as a preposition.
> This is nothing new (it's been happening for centuries) and I don't
> think there can be any serious objection to it these days.  In that
> sense, "me" is better here and I'd bet that most people would prefer it
> over "I".

Cases in English have been declining (pun intended) for centuries, and
this last vestige will probably disappear in time as well.

> It's interesting to note that this conjunction/preposition distinction
> sometimes makes a lot of difference.  In Henry VI, Part III the king
> says:
> 
>   Then why should they love Edward more than me?
> 
> Had he said "than I" it would have meant something else entirely.
> </OT>

Yes; that's one of the few decent examples of why cases are important,
but since we've lost so much already, one could argue it's not worth
keeping them _only_ for pronouns.  English's lack of consistency is one
of its biggest drawbacks.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5763 — Re: bdiff

On 2011-06-09, Uno <Uno@example.invalid> wrote:
>      while (((c = fgetc(fp)) != EOF) || ((d = fgetc(fq)) != EOF)) {

Why are you using ``||'' here? Wouldn't ``&&'' make more sense?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6435 — Re: bdiff

In article <95bg72Fjo2U1@mid.individual.net>, Uno  <Uno@example.invalid> wrote:
>On 06/08/2011 10:20 PM, Uno wrote:
>>
>> It's a weird night here in abq; I'm gonna go out and howl at the orange
>> moon.

Did you hear about the werewolf in San Francisco?  down at Fisherman's Wharf,
he faced away from the waterfront, and dropped trou.

As one local put it -- "Silly mixed-up werewolf, mooning at the bay!"

*groan*

>I'm stuck again, so that's the night.  I don't see why this wouldn't 
>traverse both files for the length of the shorter one:

THIMK!!!  what happens on the *OR* condition when _one_ test becomes FALSE??


>$ cc -Wall -Wextra cmp4.c -o cmp
>cmp4.c: In function ‘main’:
>cmp4.c:12: error: expected statement before ‘)’ token

[[  sneck  ]]

[[  cmp4.c line 12 follows:  ]]
>
>   while (((c = fgetc(fp)) != EOF) || (d = fgetc(fq)) != EOF))
>
>My parens are probably mismatched by now, but I don't make one statement 
>on that line; I think I make two.

*BINGO*  count the parens on the the 'while' line.  more ')', than '('.
>-- 
>Uno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web