On 26 February 2014 03:42, zMan wrote:
> The latter. But I'd ask the first question differently: what mail software
> lets subscribers reply to individual digest articles WITHOUT requiring them
> to manually set the Subject: line?
>
And even that approach has its limitations as most mail program
The latter. But I'd ask the first question differently: what mail software
lets subscribers reply to individual digest articles WITHOUT requiring them
to manually set the Subject: line?
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> What wretched mail software permits subscribers to r
Forgive previous last accidental.
On Feb 25, 2014 6:11 PM, "John Ehrman" wrote:
> Ed Jaffe commented:
> >If such rewrite were viable, one could argue that all existing ISV
> product code would have already been rewritten in METAL or Dignus C,
> which it has not. New modules? Possibly. But, not ex
I'm not sure how You got this email address but please do not send any
further mail here. THANK You
On Feb 25, 2014 6:11 PM, "John Ehrman" wrote:
> Ed Jaffe commented:
> >If such rewrite were viable, one could argue that all existing ISV
> product code would have already been rewritten in METAL o
Ed Jaffe commented:
>If such rewrite were viable, one could argue that all existing ISV
product code would have already been rewritten in METAL or Dignus C,
which it has not. New modules? Possibly. But, not existing ones.
Confirmed by academic studies. See
(1) P.J.Middleton, "The Costs of Changing
On 25 February 2014 17:57, John Ehrman wrote:
> Tony Harminc noted:
>> There were a number of efforts to produce compatible PL/S compilers
> even in the absense of formal language specs, the most notorious of
> which was the Rand Corporation's RL/S.
>
> There was also one at Princeton by ?? Varian
Tony Harminc noted:
> There were a number of efforts to produce compatible PL/S compilers
even in the absense of formal language specs, the most notorious of
which was the Rand Corporation's RL/S.
There was also one at Princeton by ?? Varian (Melinda's husband, I think).
It was also squelched by I
So, to respond to the one comment, it was ok for the Science guys to want mixed
case things because that was what they were used to. Ok, I can buy that. Same
rationale can be applied to the C programmers. Now, let's be fair, using the
very same reasoning, I can then justify MY perception that
What wretched mail software permits subscribers to reply to
individual digest articles, but supplies as the Subject: line
"...DIGEST..." rather than the subject of the specific article?
(Or is it laziness on the part of the user?)
-- gil
On 2014-02-25, at 08:27, Phil Smith III wrote:
> John Gilmore wrote:
>
>> There is an old mathematical/engineering tradition of distinguishing
>> the meanings of the minuscules and majuscules of the same alphabetic
>> letter.
>
>
>
> I can *almost* buy this in programming (and yes, I read to the
IBM Mainframe Assembler List wrote on
02/25/2014 10:27:36 AM:
> From: Phil Smith III
> John Gilmore wrote:
> >There is an old mathematical/engineering tradition of distinguishing
> >the meanings of the minuscules and majuscules of the same alphabetic
> >letter.
>
> I can *almost* buy this
John Gilmore wrote:
>There is an old mathematical/engineering tradition of distinguishing
>the meanings of the minuscules and majuscules of the same alphabetic
>letter.
I can *almost* buy this in programming (and yes, I read to the end, and
realize you aren't advocating that). But the cas
On 2014-02-25, at 07:41, John Gilmore wrote:
> There is an old mathematical/engineering tradition of distinguishing
> the meanings of the minuscules and majuscules of the same alphabetic
> letter.
>
> ...
> What is appropriate is thus contextual and thus also problematic. We
> programmers are a m
There is an old mathematical/engineering tradition of distinguishing
the meanings of the minuscules and majuscules of the same alphabetic
letter.
A may denote some array and a(i,,j)---not A(i,,j)---one of its
elements. A set may be represented as S = {s(1), s(2), . . . ,
s(j), . . . , s(n)}.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:44:36 -0600, John McKown wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:15 PM, zMan wrote:
>
>> Here's a fun experiment. Find your favorite *IX person. Ask them why
>> case-sensitivity is A Good Thing.
>>
>My guess, and that's all that it is, is that the original UNIX was case
>sensitive
15 matches
Mail list logo
