Does any know if there are any archives of recent postings to
comp.lang.lisp available online? The thread I'm interested in at the
moment occured just over a year ago.
Of the usenet archives mentioned by the ALU website:
- the one at gmd.de appears to be no more;
- the CMU-based on stops midway through 1997.
Use groups.google.com you say! Well, their current interface is not
suitable for long threads (you can only view ten articles at a time)
containing long articles (it 'helpfully' truncates long articles in the
thread view forcing you to follow a link to the single, complete
article).
Any alternatives gratefully received!
--
Duncan Harvey
"Smiling and waving. Before letting himself fall."
-- Anja Garbarek, The Diver
* ····@hubris2.demon.co.uk (Duncan Harvey)
| Does any know if there are any archives of recent postings to
| comp.lang.lisp available online? The thread I'm interested in at the
| moment occured just over a year ago.
I have an archive of all messages since 2000-02-25. (the plan was to
hook it up to some search engine, but I haven't gotten around to that
yet.)
I just made a snapshot (18 MB) of the messages in the archive; I'll
make it available by FTP and email you the URL. if there's interest,
I can break it up into a tarball for each month and make it publicly
available.
--
Vebjorn Ljosa
Vebjorn Ljosa <·····@ljosa.com> wrote:
> I have an archive of all [comp.lang.lisp] messages since 2000-02-25. (the
> plan was to hook it up to some search engine, but I haven't gotten around
> to that yet.)
>
> I just made a snapshot (18 MB) of the messages in the archive; I'll make
> it available by FTP and email you the URL.
Thank you very much for making this available to me.
> if there's interest, I can break it up into a tarball for each month and
> make it publicly available.
I'd certainly have found that useful this time. I also think it's
useful to have a certain amount of redundancy, should for example Google
ever disappear.
OTOH, not everyone believes that Usenet postings should be archived for
posterity. And it's not as though *I'm* donating storage and bandwidth
for this stuff... ;)
Thanks once again.
--
Duncan Harvey
"Smiling and waving. Before letting himself fall."
-- Anja Garbarek, The Diver
····@hubris2.demon.co.uk (Duncan Harvey) writes:
> Well, their current interface is not
> suitable for long threads (you can only view ten articles at a time)
> containing long articles (it 'helpfully' truncates long articles in the
> thread view forcing you to follow a link to the single, complete
> article).
If you follow the link to "advanced groups search" you will find the ability to
have as many as 100 at a time....
Sometimes truncation is a blessing ;-)
Regards, KBK
Kurt B. Kaiser <···@shore.net> wrote:
> ····@hubris2.demon.co.uk (Duncan Harvey) writes:
> > [Google's] current interface is not suitable for long threads (you can
> > only view ten articles at a time) containing long articles (it
> > 'helpfully' truncates long articles in the thread view forcing you to
> > follow a link to the single, complete article).
>
> If you follow the link to "advanced groups search" you will find the
> ability to have as many as 100 at a time....
No. That only affects the search results, not the thread view (at least
not on my browser).
However, inspired by your remark I added &max=50 to the URL of the
thread view and lo-and-behold got 40 more articles (the long ones still
truncated, mind you).
So I thank you.
> Sometimes truncation is a blessing ;-)
I agree. Sometimes.
--
Duncan Harvey
"Smiling and waving. Before letting himself fall."
-- Anja Garbarek, The Diver
····@hubris2.demon.co.uk (Duncan Harvey) writes:
> Kurt B. Kaiser <···@shore.net> wrote:
>
> > ····@hubris2.demon.co.uk (Duncan Harvey) writes:
> > > [Google's] current interface is not suitable for long threads (you can
> > > only view ten articles at a time) containing long articles (it
> > > 'helpfully' truncates long articles in the thread view forcing you to
> > > follow a link to the single, complete article).
> >
> > If you follow the link to "advanced groups search" you will find the
> > ability to have as many as 100 at a time....
>
> No. That only affects the search results, not the thread view (at least
> not on my browser).
Hm. I misunderstood your request.
>
> However, inspired by your remark I added &max=50 to the URL of the
> thread view and lo-and-behold got 40 more articles (the long ones still
> truncated, mind you).
>
That didn't work for me for some reason?! What I finally hit upon, inspired
by your experimental approach:
1. Do the query from Advanced Groups Search
2. On the search display, select "View Thread (XX articles)" for
item of interest.
3. When that displays (and if the thread looks interesting and it's long =),
click on the end of the URL in the entry field of the browser and erase
back through the seekm selector and its value.
4. add num=50 to the URL and hit <enter>
> So I thank you.
>
I thank you! Very helpful.
I wonder if there's a secret selector for the number of article lines
displayed or if it's hardwired?
Regards, KBK
Kurt B. Kaiser <···@shore.net> wrote:
> ····@hubris2.demon.co.uk (Duncan Harvey) writes:
> > However, inspired by your remark I added &max=50 to the URL of the
> > thread view and lo-and-behold got 40 more articles (the long ones still
> > truncated, mind you).
I'm an idiot! I meant '&num=50' not '&max=50', as you found out.
Apologies for the careless misinformation.
--
Duncan Harvey
"Smiling and waving. Before letting himself fall."
-- Anja Garbarek, The Diver