At 14:56 -0400 on 10/08/2010, Andreas F. Geissbuehler wrote about
Fwd: 16-bytes the same:
First time I saw this was in 1968 in some 'n'-inches thick stack
of fan-fold paper. It saved thousands of trees, millions of $$$ on
paper, ribbons and computer time from the IBM 1401 1960's to
the day a SYSUDUMP became too big to print and carry o one's
desk. Today it's mostly in the way and I second the motion, it could,
it SHOULD be an option (minimum number of *equal* bytes).
Andreas F. Geissbuehler
AFG Consultants Inc.
http://www.afgc-inc.com/
"robin" <robin51...> blasts:
Why not?, I wonder. Obviously not much thought went into
the design of that program
From: "Hall, Keven" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 8 October 2010 5:46 AM
One of my pet peeves is when IPCS (for example) does this:
0000 40404040 40404040 40404040 00000000 | |
0010 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 |................|
0020 Next X'0010' bytes same as above
0030 00000000 40404040 40404040 40404040 |.... |
Why not just display the [expletive elided] data?
I think that there should be a sanity check for replacing the display
with a SAME AS ABOVE line. Unless the SAME AS is suppressing two or
more lines just display the duplicate line. In the above case, you
are replacing the display of the 0020 line with the comment. Only if
0030 is a duplicate of 0020 should SAME AS be displayed.
