Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!talisker.lacave.net!lacave.net!not-for-mail From: "Eric T." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby Subject: Re: Telnet "More?" Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 20:00:38 -0500 Organization: Service de news de lacave.net Lines: 25 Message-ID: <56feb3a19cdca1e267e47ba4161d62d8@ruby-forum.com> References: <0bc1be8ec871e5fbad7753c695247ddc@ruby-forum.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bristol.highgroove.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: talisker.lacave.net 1303088559 82758 65.111.164.187 (18 Apr 2011 01:02:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@lacave.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 01:02:39 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: X-Received-From: This message has been automatically forwarded from the ruby-talk mailing list by a gateway at comp.lang.ruby. If it is SPAM, it did not originate at comp.lang.ruby. Please report the original sender, and not us. Thanks! For more details about this gateway, please visit: http://blog.grayproductions.net/categories/the_gateway X-Mail-Count: 381761 X-Ml-Name: ruby-talk X-Rubymirror: Yes X-Ruby-Talk: <56feb3a19cdca1e267e47ba4161d62d8@ruby-forum.com> Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.ruby:3077 Christopher Dicely wrote in post #993345: > It looks like the server is sending something other than the default > prompt and expecting a response; you probably need to handle that > case. Yes, but I'm wondering *why* this happens with the Ruby client. It's hard as hell to search the web for the "More?" response, because search engines ignore the "?" leaving you search for "More" (pun not indented, but apropos). > If you use telnet directly (from the console, not a script) and do the > same sequence of commands, what happens? It works fine. It also works fine using the Python client. But so far, in my extremely superficial comparison of the languages, I'm liking Ruby better. I like that regex is a first class citizen (/f?o/i is a hell of a lot better than re.compile('f?o', re.IGNORECASE)), and I like the implementation of Ruby's telnet library better (passing blocks to receive output is a nice touch). Unfortunately, a straight-forward use of the library is provoking a weird response from the server. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.