Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Michael Unger <spam.to.unger@spamgourmet.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: getting system information from a PS program
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:46:19 +0100
Organization: not that I'm aware of ...
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <9o87h3F8tgU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <9nr4ecF33kU1@mid.individual.net> <e4492ec2-24b1-4b44-891d-50433e89bce8@u2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> <9o5gj7Fg78U2@mid.individual.net> <30312552-d18c-4787-8d35-a4b00cec6a4d@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: 2012Q1.usenet.michaelunger@spamgourmet.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: individual.net abAAgHdmbK337Z26PxlBzgNP8LBa0ep/3SWVlA4fs2YfrkdUJS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0VnWuLeGhpcvdLwQ7zLXeFDNNQE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 SeaMonkey/1.1.19
In-Reply-To: <30312552-d18c-4787-8d35-a4b00cec6a4d@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.postscript:585

On 2012-01-23 21:18, "SaGS" wrote:

> On Jan 23, 6:26 pm, Michael Unger <spam.to.un...@spamgourmet.com>
> wrote:
>> ...
>> Will it be sufficient to process the string object written to the
>> "scratch" object by "filenameforall", saving it to an array or a
>> dictionary for example? (PLRM, 3rd ed, page 588)
>=20
> If you want

I don't "want" but I definitely "have to" because (parts of) the file
names are used in multiple places; some comments printed onto the page
are derived from the names as well as bookmark entries when a new month
begins (the date is encoded within the file name).

>             to keep for later use the (sub)strings returned by
> filenameforall, either as returned by the operator or modified =91in
> place=92, then copy them to newly allocated string objects.
>=20
> This is because [...]
>=20
> To see what happens, run the following 2 code fragments and compare
> the results:
>=20
>     [ (*) {} 1024 string filenameforall ] =3D=3D
>     [ (*) { dup length string copy } 1024 string filenameforall ] =3D=3D=


Well, the difference is quite obvious. Judging from the observed
behaviour the string object "filenameforall" uses apparently isn't
handled on the stack but elsewhere in "virtual memory".

> [...]
>=20
> A note, since you use Windows: NTFS filesystems enumerate files in
> alphabetic order. [...]

I don't know any file system internals. The "Windows Explorer" is able
to sort the data using a lot of file attributes in ascending and
descending order. Using "dir" from the "DOS prompt" doesn't result in
alphabetical ordering at all.

Michael

--=20
Real names enhance the probability of getting real answers.
My e-mail account at DECUS Munich is no longer valid.