On Oct 23, 2006, at 9:26 AM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
I never know what to do. Top or bottom? Full or nothing?
Thanks for a thoughtful answer. I have never cared about top vs.
bottom posting, just concise quoting.
Ken
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@l
On Oct 23, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
P.S. I already reduced your response to the pith level in case you
decide to respond to this post.
Pithy indeed! ;-)
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
___
Post Message
Now I liked this one
P.S. I already reduced your response to the pith level in case you decide to
respond to this post.
Virgil Bierschwale
Armstrong and Skipper Real Estate
(830) 329-6774 Cell
(830) 864-4726 Home
(830) 864-4799 Fax
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.bierschwale.co
=> Look at text you quoted from Ken. How much is
=> needed to understand the context of your reply? Do you
=> need tell us what you quoted is the "Original
=> Message"? Does the header information enable anyone to understand your reply
better?
=>
=> All you need to quote is what you
On Oct 23, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
=> -Original Message-
=> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenneth
Kixmoeller/fh
=> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 20:32
=> To: profox@leafe.com
=> Subject: Re: DBF() and GETFILE() no
=> -Original Message-
=> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh
=> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 20:32
=> To: profox@leafe.com
=> Subject: Re: DBF() and GETFILE() no respecters of case
=>
=> Now if we could only
On Oct 19, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote:
Coleman, you win. No joke.
Now if we could only convince Hal to trim the quoting on his replies...
How about this: Trimming Rocks!
Ken
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenan
Great posting, Charlie
Charlie Coleman wrote:
At 06:34 PM 10/18/2006 -0400, Hal Kaplan wrote:
...
I read what you wrote a couple of times and frankly got confused.
First you say that humans can easily handle mixed-case and then you
say they shouldn't have to. Computers are computers and huma
Hal Kaplan wrote:
Coleman, you win. No joke. You've convinced me that case-sensitivity is of no
appreciable value. Which is why for the life of me, I cannot understand how it
got left out of XP and Vista.
I read your explanation and thought about it and now realize that I was confusing sens
At 06:22 PM 10/19/2006 -0400, Hal Kaplan wrote:
...
BTW, when are we going to discuss the merits NULLs?
I refuse to discuss NULLs. They have no discernable value to me.
;-)
-Charlie
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance:
gt; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Coleman
=> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:22
=> To: ProFox Email List
=> Subject: RE: DBF() and GETFILE() no respecters of case
=>
=> At 06:34 PM 10/18/2006 -0400, Hal Kaplan wrote:
=> ...
=>
> Bill wrote ,,,
>
> => Charlie, I think Hal said this, but IBM mainframes from the
> => beginning were based on EBCDIC which does allow
> upper/lower => case, but early keypunches didn't support
> keying in lower case.
>
> EBCDIC was created in conjunction with the System 360 in
> 1962-19
Paul wrote ..
=> Quite so, Hal. My original post didn't mention "sensitive"
=> or sensitivity" at all, not even in passing . The issue
=> was one of respecing (or, if you like, preserving) case. In
=> my case (sorry) the file or folder on disk is "My Folder"
=> and yet FULLPATH (and simila
At 06:34 PM 10/18/2006 -0400, Hal Kaplan wrote:
...
I read what you wrote a couple of times and frankly got confused. First
you say that humans can easily handle mixed-case and then you say they
shouldn't have to. Computers are computers and humans are humans, etc.,
etc. Well, this human hap
> No (more on that below). For mainframes, I believe you are right in
> assuming that storage was a premium. But I believe even back
> then they had a 128 character alphabet. So upper/lower text was
available.
> I just think on mainframes, they took the extra effort to 'ignore'
case in
> the f
I agree with Hal Kaplan about the the [IBM]keypunch machines and the
terminals not supporting lower case - the early VDU's (2260's) actually had
their character sets hard wired (iirc 8x5 wire frames with small ferrite
rings at the intersections where you wanted a dot).
Unix's use of case is a littl
Hal Kaplan wrote:
We got sidetracked. The original issue was maintaining the original filename
entry. I think it should be maintained and I have always wondered why it
isn't, but only for a few seconds every couple of years.
Quite so, Hal. My original post didn't mention "sensitive"
=> -Original Message-
=> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Coleman
=> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 17:35
=> To: ProFox Email List
=> Subject: RE: DBF() and GETFILE() no respecters of case
=>
=> At 09:45 AM 10/18/2006
At 09:45 AM 10/18/2006 -0400, Hal Kaplan wrote:
...
The only reason that case-sensitivity is an issue is because the first
computers had limited storage. Full-font alphabets were a luxury, as were
unambiguous dates. Now that we have the bandwidth to indulge in mirroring
actual human written
so how come you wrote your post as case-sensitive?
Because usenet fora users told me it is injury to cap letters, even if i
shout.
WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SKIP THE SHIFT KEY COMPLETELY?
Ordinarly, my app's skip the shift key. I just do use them when it is
necessary ; in some situations, cu
=> -Original Message-
=> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gérard Lochon
=> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 02:42
=> To: ProFox Email List
=> Subject: Re: DBF() and GETFILE() no respecters of case
=>
=> If you use only _ and d
Yeah, loonies rock (back and forth) not software
Allen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh
On Oct 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
> Now, back to the fun stuff... VFP rocks!!
I hereby and unilaterally decl
Do you think that Justice would authorize you to deposit the name "cOcA-
ColA" ?
Gérard.
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailm
If you use only _ and digits for filenames (e.g. like sys(3)), you don't
worry about case sensitive or not !
And why don't we exclusively use digit-based filenames ? Because it quickly
becomes unreadeable.
So we decide to use some more significant name, with letters.
In fact, the significancy is
On Oct 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
Now, back to the fun stuff... VFP rocks!!
I hereby and unilaterally declare " Rocks!" a Banished
Phrase!!! (http://www.lssu.edu/banished/) I have submitted it to make
it official.
As soon as I heard "Energy from Coal ROCKS!" on a comm
At 12:19 PM 10/17/2006 -0400, Hal Kaplan wrote:
=> -Original Message-
=> Subject: RE: DBF() and GETFILE() no respecters of case
=>
=> These are just my experiences that support my statement
=> above. To say I was perpetrating a canard was
...
You are right, Charlie,
=> -Original Message-
=> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Coleman
=> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:26
=> To: ProFox Email List
=> Subject: RE: DBF() and GETFILE() no respecters of case
=>
=> These are just my exp
At 10:58 AM 10/17/2006 -0400, Hal Kaplan wrote:
...
=> The file ThisIsCrap.ms should be opened even if it is
=> referenced as THISISCRAP.ms. Having 1 file named Thisiscrap.ms and
another allowed to
=> exist (in same directory) named ThisIsCrap.ms is ridiculous. It'll trip
up users often, and pr
=> -Original Message-
=> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Coleman
=> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:37
=> To: ProFox Email List
=> Subject: RE: DBF() and GETFILE() no respecters of case
=>
=> At 09:49 AM 10/17/2006
At 09:49 AM 10/17/2006 -0400, Hal Kaplan wrote:
Filenames are not case-sensitive. a.b is exactly the same as A.B or a.B or
A.b , etc.
They are in Unix systems
We are talking about cosmetics here. The OS would actually run faster and
be less intrusive if filenames were case-sensitive because
=> -Original Message-
=> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Coleman
=> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 08:35
=> To: ProFox Email List
=> Subject: Re: DBF() and GETFILE() no respecters of case
=>
=> >>And why, o why,
And why, o why, would anybody choose/decide to make GETFILE()
disrespectful of case ?
Because case-sensitivity in filenames is STUPID.
-Charlie
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/pr
Malcolm Greene wrote:
Paul,
VFP 9's adir() function has a new flag that returns actual case of
Good thinking, Malcolm - I can simply replace DBF() with
laFile(ADIR(laFile,DBF(),"",1),1). That will work perfectly for my needs.
Cheers
Malcolm
[excessive quoting removed by server]
__
Paul,
VFP 9's adir() function has a new flag that returns actual case of
files.
Malcolm
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/li
Paul,
Check out Christian's vfp2c.com which has alternative wrappers for file
selection.
Malcolm
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/m
On Oct 16, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Paul Newton wrote:
Well, I don't complain of any of the above - but I do complain on
the fact that VFP often CHANGES the case of the file it uses. Why?
Just so that developers have something to complain about
No, it's so that people who are using cross-platfor
I also get peeved when the Fox insists on properties being all lower
case instead of cMyProperty !! And that is despite what the latest (and
previous) help files have to say about Naming Conventions ...
Dan Olsson wrote:
At 2006-10-17 00:45, you wrote:
On 10/16/06, Paul Newton <[EMAIL PROTE
Dan Olsson wrote:
At 2006-10-17 00:45, you wrote:
On 10/16/06, Paul Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am a bit peeved (that's the polite term) that neither of these
functions respects case.
They complain when the product is case-sensitive; they complain when
it is not. Conclusion: develope
Aw, c'mon Ted - I did say: "I do realise that the ShowOpen method of the
MS Common Control dialog does result in a case-respecting FILNAME
property, but what I really would like is a case-respecting alternative
to DBF(). "
So - since it's a case sensitive DBF() that I really need perhaps there
At 2006-10-17 00:45, you wrote:
On 10/16/06, Paul Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am a bit peeved (that's the polite term) that neither of these
functions respects case.
They complain when the product is case-sensitive; they complain when
it is not. Conclusion: developers like to complain
On 10/16/06, Paul Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am a bit peeved (that's the polite term) that neither of these
functions respects case.
They complain when the product is case-sensitive; they complain when
it is not. Conclusion: developers like to complain.
And why, o why, would anybo
Hi all
I am a bit peeved (that's the polite term) that neither of these
functions respects case.
I do realise that the ShowOpen method of the MS Common Control dialog
does result in a case-respecting FILNAME property, but what I really
would like is a case-respecting alternative to DBF().
42 matches
Mail list logo
