I try to follow the 80-column rule with other languages I use, and I've
been assuming that it is good style to continue doing so in Lisp. I'm
finding it difficult to do so however, especially when I use LOOP. For
example, the following function from a project I'm working on at the
moment:
(defun do-preamble (in out)
(let ((line nil))
(loop until (or (eq *EOF*
(setf line
(read-line-as-list in
(make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab)))))
(null line)) do
(compile-preamble line))
(write-preamble out)))
I can't see a way to re-format that function to get it to fit in 80
columns. Perhaps that's a sign that the function needs refactoring? Or
is it just a consequence of me using long names for READ-LINE-AS-LIST and
MAKE-SIMPLE-TOKENISER? Is that in itself a style mistake? Perhaps I'm
worrying about nothing and the 80-column rule makes less sense for Lisp
than it does for other languages?
All and any thoughts very welcome.
Thanks,
Bill.
William Bland <·······@abstractnonsense.com> writes:
> I try to follow the 80-column rule with other languages I use, and I've
> been assuming that it is good style to continue doing so in Lisp. I'm
> finding it difficult to do so however, especially when I use LOOP. For
> example, the following function from a project I'm working on at the
> moment:
>
> (defun do-preamble (in out)
> (let ((line nil))
> (loop until (or (eq *EOF*
> (setf line
> (read-line-as-list in
> (make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab)))))
> (null line)) do
> (compile-preamble line))
> (write-preamble out)))
>
> I can't see a way to re-format that function to get it to fit in 80
> columns. Perhaps that's a sign that the function needs refactoring? Or
> is it just a consequence of me using long names for READ-LINE-AS-LIST and
> MAKE-SIMPLE-TOKENISER? Is that in itself a style mistake? Perhaps I'm
> worrying about nothing and the 80-column rule makes less sense for Lisp
> than it does for other languages?
>
> All and any thoughts very welcome.
I'd write it like this: (I'd also spell tokenizer with a z.)
(defun do-preamble (in out)
(loop with tokeniser = (make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab))
for line = (read-line-as-list in tokeniser)
until (or (eq *EOF* line) (null line))
do (compile-preamble line)
finally (write-preamble out)))
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:35:24 +0000, Peter Seibel wrote:
> William Bland <·······@abstractnonsense.com> writes:
>
>>
>> All and any thoughts very welcome.
>
> I'd write it like this: (I'd also spell tokenizer with a z.)
>
> (defun do-preamble (in out)
> (loop with tokeniser = (make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab))
> for line = (read-line-as-list in tokeniser)
> until (or (eq *EOF* line) (null line))
> do (compile-preamble line)
> finally (write-preamble out)))
>
> -Peter
Thanks Peter - looks like I could usefully learn a few more LOOP tricks -
thanks, I'll start playing more with it.
I'll never spell tokeniser with a z though. Just because I live in
America now doesn't mean I have to start mis-spelling everything ;-)
Cheers,
Bill.
William Bland wrote:
> I'll never spell tokeniser with a z though. Just because I live in
> America now doesn't mean I have to start mis-spelling everything ;-)
>
Do you type on the left side of the keyboard?
Aloha,
David Sletten
William Bland wrote:
> I'll never spell tokeniser with a z though. Just because I live in
> America now doesn't mean I have to start mis-spelling everything ;-)
The -ize spelling is perfectly good UK English too,
and has always been preferred by the Oxford University
Press at least. I think the widespread use of -ise is
at least partly a reaction against US English.
Etymologically, -ize makes better sense than -ise,
being nearer to its Greek roots.
"Analyze", however, makes no sense at all. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Etymologically, -ize makes better sense than -ise,
> being nearer to its Greek roots.
Only english got the '-ise' suffix via the french (infact most, in not
all, the english words ending in 'ise' are french words.) :)
>
> "Analyze", however, makes no sense at all. :-)
From the greek! "analusis" via the french 'analyse'. The replacement of
the U with Y makes some sense. however the subsequent change from the S
to the Z is just one of those wierd english things.
Here in Canada, the 'ise' spelling is prefered over 'ize', but the
newspapers tend to use both, leaving it up to the writer (or copy-ed ..
i dunno). I spoke French before i spoke english, and i tend to prefer
the US spelling when reading english as i pronounce it in english in my
head (critis-EYES) vs (crtitis-EEs)... But i almost always use the -ise
in my writing.
drewc
drewc wrote:
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
> > "Analyze", however, makes no sense at all. :-)
>
> From the greek! "analusis" via the french 'analyse'. The
> replacement of the U with Y makes some sense.
It's `analysis' in Greek. No idea where you got this
misinformation from. (In fact, there was no single vocal `u'
in Greek, only the diphtong `ou'. And, furthermore, `y' was not
even a native Latin vocal, but was derived mostly from Greek
influences.)
--tcr.
On 2005-02-05, Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
>>
>> From the greek! "analusis" via the french 'analyse'. The
>> replacement of the U with Y makes some sense.
>
> It's `analysis' in Greek. No idea where you got this
> misinformation from. (In fact, there was no single vocal `u'
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s3.html
"The interpretive intricacies can be illustrated here by taking the case of
Thomas Aquinas (c.1225-74). In a recent paper (1994), Eileen Sweeney has
argued that there are three notions of resolutio--to use the Latin term
that translated the original Greek word analusis--in Aquinas's work."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analysis
"[Medieval Latin, from Greek analusis, a dissolving..."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/1/A0280100.html
"ETYMOLOGY: Perhaps from French analyser, from analyse, analysis, from
Greek analusis. See analysis."
Curt wrote:
> On 2005-02-05, Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
> > > From the greek! "analusis" via the french 'analyse'. The
> > > replacement of the U with Y makes some sense.
> >
> > It's `analysis' in Greek. No idea where you got this
> > misinformation from. (In fact, there was no single vocal `u'
>
> [...]
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analysis
>
> "[Medieval Latin, from Greek analusis, a dissolving..."
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/1/A0280100.html
>
> "ETYMOLOGY: Perhaps from French analyser, from analyse, analysis,
> from Greek analusis. See analysis."
Well, this is probably an issue of transliteration: Apparantly `u' is
often used as a transliteration character for the Greek y-psilon,
mostly in America, AFAIK.
It's still an y-psilon and prunounced like the German umlaut `ue'
or like the i-tone in `evening'.
--tcr.
On 2005-02-06, Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's `analysis' in Greek. No idea where you got this
>> > misinformation from. (In fact, there was no single vocal `u'
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analysis
>>
>> "[Medieval Latin, from Greek analusis, a dissolving..."
>>
>> http://www.bartleby.com/61/1/A0280100.html
>>
>> "ETYMOLOGY: Perhaps from French analyser, from analyse, analysis,
>> from Greek analusis. See analysis."
>
> Well, this is probably an issue of transliteration: Apparantly `u' is
> often used as a transliteration character for the Greek y-psilon,
> mostly in America, AFAIK.
Mostly in America? I cannot find anything that would confirm this.
But you can hardly refer to such a "transliteration" as "misinformation"
in an English-language newsgroup.
> It's still an y-psilon and prunounced like the German umlaut `ue'
> or like the i-tone in `evening'.
Yes, and it principally remains with enormous obstination an "upsilon".
Four letters of the Latin alphabet were derived from it: U, W, V and Y.
Its pronunciation has evolved through time; your's correponds solely to
modern Greek.
--
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently
opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Curt wrote:
> On 2005-02-06, Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
>
> > Well, this is probably an issue of transliteration: Apparantly `u'
> > is often used as a transliteration character for the Greek
> > y-psilon, mostly in America, AFAIK.
>
> Mostly in America? I cannot find anything that would confirm this.
Transliteration of greek isn't used here as much as overseas. At least
that's what I'm told.
Thus:
> But you can hardly refer to such a "transliteration" as
> "misinformation" in an English-language newsgroup.
I didn't think of that possibility back when I wrote that (because
transliteration isn't really something I'm used to).
> > It's still an y-psilon and prunounced like the German umlaut `ue'
> > or like the i-tone in `evening'.
>
> Yes, and it principally remains with enormous obstination an
> "upsilon". Four letters of the Latin alphabet were derived from it:
> U, W, V and Y. Its pronunciation has evolved through time; your's
> correponds solely to modern Greek.
Pronounced as an i-tone is modern. If the word in question is clearly
of ancient Greek, I'd pronounce it like `ue' as a rule of thumb.
--tcr.
"Tobias C. Rittweiler" <······@freebits.de> writes:
> Curt wrote:
>> On 2005-02-06, Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, this is probably an issue of transliteration: Apparantly `u'
>> > is often used as a transliteration character for the Greek
>> > y-psilon, mostly in America, AFAIK.
>>
>> Mostly in America? I cannot find anything that would confirm this.
>
> Transliteration of greek isn't used here as much as overseas. At
> least that's what I'm told.
Where's "here"? Germany? So you just always use the Greek alphabet for
Greek words?
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
Peter Seibel wrote:
> "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <······@freebits.de> writes:
>
> > Transliteration of greek isn't used here as much as overseas. At
> > least that's what I'm told.
>
> Where's "here"? Germany?
Aye.
> So you just always use the Greek alphabet for Greek words?
Well, it certainly depends. I encountered transliteration mostly
in introductory literature about philosophy that (when at all)
used it for keywords which are so common that you know or can deduce
them anyway.
(And in fact, thinking about it, an upsilon is indeed transliterated
with an `u' if it constitues a diphthong like `eu' or `ou', but not
following a consonant. Example: eucalyptus not eucaluptus :-).
Hopefully you can understand my confusion by now.)
--tcr.
"Tobias C. Rittweiler" schrieb:
> Aye.
[snip]
> .... Example: eucalyptus not eucaluptus :-).
Isn't it "eukalyptos" in greek?
^
"eucalyptus" sounds like latin.
stefan
lin8080 <·······@freenet.de> writes:
> "Tobias C. Rittweiler" schrieb:
>
> > Aye.
> [snip]
> > .... Example: eucalyptus not eucaluptus :-).
>
>
> Isn't it "eukalyptos" in greek?
> ^
> "eucalyptus" sounds like latin.
Of course, since it's the Romans who transmited us this word.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Small brave carnivores
Kill pine cones and mosquitoes
Fear vacuum cleaner
On 2005-02-08, Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>> Isn't it "eukalyptos" in greek?
>> ^
>> "eucalyptus" sounds like latin.
>
> Of course, since it's the Romans who transmited us this word.
I doubt that, as the term was coined in 1788 by the French botanist Charles
Louis L'h�ritier de Brutelle. I also doubt that the Roman Empire extended
into Australia and Tasmania, where these trees are indigenous.
I believe its ukulele in Hawaiian, by the way.
Curt <·····@free.fr> writes:
> On 2005-02-08, Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Isn't it "eukalyptos" in greek?
> >> ^
> >> "eucalyptus" sounds like latin.
> >
> > Of course, since it's the Romans who transmited us this word.
>
> I doubt that, as the term was coined in 1788 by the French botanist Charles
> Louis L'h�ritier de Brutelle. I also doubt that the Roman Empire extended
> into Australia and Tasmania, where these trees are indigenous.
Of course :-)
(But botanists like Latin to name their plants).
> I believe its ukulele in Hawaiian, by the way.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
In a World without Walls and Fences,
who needs Windows and Gates?
On 2005-02-06, Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and it principally remains with enormous obstination an
>> "upsilon". Four letters of the Latin alphabet were derived from it:
>> U, W, V and Y. Its pronunciation has evolved through time; your's
>> correponds solely to modern Greek.
> Pronounced as an i-tone is modern. If the word in question is clearly
> of ancient Greek, I'd pronounce it like `ue' as a rule of thumb.
Yes, I got confused!
I do wonder how "they" guess with any sort of confidence how a
phoneme was uttered thousands of years ago, and by whom.
Curt <·····@free.fr> writes:
> On 2005-02-06, Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, and it principally remains with enormous obstination an
> >> "upsilon". Four letters of the Latin alphabet were derived from it:
> >> U, W, V and Y. Its pronunciation has evolved through time; your's
> >> correponds solely to modern Greek.
>
> > Pronounced as an i-tone is modern. If the word in question is clearly
> > of ancient Greek, I'd pronounce it like `ue' as a rule of thumb.
>
> Yes, I got confused!
>
> I do wonder how "they" guess with any sort of confidence how a
> phoneme was uttered thousands of years ago, and by whom.
Well, one hint as to how the letter was used pre-recording-technology
is in the choice of naming the Spanish letter "y". I don't know how
far back that naming choice goes, but presumably it contains some
useful clues to pronunciation from whatever time the name was created.
I thought the name odd, but learned this word by rote early in my
study of Spanish, long before I knew what "griega" meant, and never
gave it much thought until years later: "igriega" ("Greek i").
What brought its meaning to my attention was the Portuguese name is
someimes "igrega" but sometimes "�psilon" (regional variation?). I
have to assume that they named it thus because there were two sublty
different kinds of "i" sounds.
From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Subject: Re: Following the 80-column rule
Date:
Message-ID: <87fz09wfwb.fsf@qrnik.zagroda>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> I thought the name odd, but learned this word by rote early in my
> study of Spanish, long before I knew what "griega" meant, and never
> gave it much thought until years later: "igriega" ("Greek i").
It's not just Spanish. In Polish it's "ygrek" or "igrek".
(It's probably borrowed from somewhere else, as this is not the
correct form of the Polish adjective for Greek.)
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
>
>>I thought the name odd, but learned this word by rote early in my
>>study of Spanish, long before I knew what "griega" meant, and never
>>gave it much thought until years later: "igriega" ("Greek i").
>
>
> It's not just Spanish. In Polish it's "ygrek" or "igrek".
>
> (It's probably borrowed from somewhere else, as this is not the
> correct form of the Polish adjective for Greek.)
>
French. Of course.
--ag
--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
http://it-matters.blogspot.com (new post 12/5)
http://www.cafepress.com/goldsays
Curt <·····@free.fr> writes:
> On 2005-02-06, Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > It's `analysis' in Greek. No idea where you got this
>>> > misinformation from. (In fact, there was no single vocal `u'
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analysis
>>>
>>> "[Medieval Latin, from Greek analusis, a dissolving..."
>>>
>>> http://www.bartleby.com/61/1/A0280100.html
>>>
>>> "ETYMOLOGY: Perhaps from French analyser, from analyse, analysis,
>>> from Greek analusis. See analysis."
>>
>> Well, this is probably an issue of transliteration: Apparantly `u'
>> is often used as a transliteration character for the Greek
>> y-psilon, mostly in America, AFAIK.
>
> Mostly in America? I cannot find anything that would confirm this.
> But you can hardly refer to such a "transliteration" as
> "misinformation" in an English-language newsgroup.
FWIW, Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed. Gives the transliteraton of
Upsilon as "u" except after "a", "e", "e"-with a line over it, and "i"
where it is "often 'y'". I don't have any British references books at
hand.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
[Curt <·····@free.fr>, 06 Feb 2005 15:45:07 GMT]:
> On 2005-02-06, Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
> > It's still an y-psilon and prunounced like the German umlaut `ue'
> > or like the i-tone in `evening'.
>
> Yes, and it principally remains with enormous obstination an "upsilon".
> Four letters of the Latin alphabet were derived from it: U, W, V and Y.
> Its pronunciation has evolved through time; your's correponds solely to
> modern Greek.
The pronunciation of the character with TLG-beta code transliteration
"U", or LaTeX babel (polutonikogreek) transliteration "u", like the
modern German umlaut "ue" is actually what is taught in schools for
Classical Greek at least in German speaking countries.
As to its historic correctness, cf. <http://www.oeaw.ac.at/kal/agp/>
and the references given there; in particular, according to
<http://www.oeaw.ac.at/kal/sh/whb37.pdf> the "ue" pronunciation is
correct for late classic Attic, whereas (German) "u" (short -oo- in
English) would be correct for earlier texts like, e.g., Homer.
At any rate, the "ue" pronunciation described by Tobias is not just
modern Greek (and I don't know whether it actually is the modern Greek
one or not).
Not that this has much to do with Lisp.
Albert.
Hello!
Curt <·····@free.fr> wrote:
>[...]
>> It's still an y-psilon and prunounced like the German umlaut `ue'
>> or like the i-tone in `evening'.
>Yes, and it principally remains with enormous obstination an "upsilon".
>Four letters of the Latin alphabet were derived from it: U, W, V and Y.
>Its pronunciation has evolved through time; your's correponds solely to
>modern Greek.
The "i-tone in `evening'" one seems to correpond to modern Greek, right,
while the association to German � (`ue' for the latin-1-impaired)
probably matches some classical pronounciation that might well have
been in use when Latin loaned Greek words and wrote them with <y> instead
of <u> which Latin already had for its own [u] sound, and instead of
<i> which would've been logical if the Greek sound had already shifted
to [i] in the classical period (which it hasn't).
Kind regards,
Hannah.
"Tobias C. Rittweiler" <······@freebits.de> writes:
> drewc wrote:
>
> > Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> >
> > > "Analyze", however, makes no sense at all. :-)
> >
> > From the greek! "analusis" via the french 'analyse'. The
> > replacement of the U with Y makes some sense.
>
> It's `analysis' in Greek. No idea where you got this
> misinformation from. (In fact, there was no single vocal `u'
> in Greek, only the diphtong `ou'. And, furthermore, `y' was not
> even a native Latin vocal, but was derived mostly from Greek
> influences.)
Indeed, why else would it be called greek-i?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
I need a new toy.
Tail of black dog keeps good time.
Pounce! Good dog! Good dog!
Hello!
Tobias C. Rittweiler <······@freebits.de> wrote:
>drewc wrote:
>> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>> > "Analyze", however, makes no sense at all. :-)
>> From the greek! "analusis" via the french 'analyse'. The
>> replacement of the U with Y makes some sense.
>It's `analysis' in Greek. No idea where you got this
>misinformation from. (In fact, there was no single vocal `u'
>in Greek, only the diphtong `ou'. And, furthermore, `y' was not
>even a native Latin vocal, but was derived mostly from Greek
>influences.)
IIRC, historically, Greek Ypsilon derives from PIE *u, and in older
Greek dialects (pre-classical at least, IIRC) it probably still
had the sound value of [u] which only shifted to something around
[y] later (and to something around [i] even later).
I've also read that the spelling omikron/ypsilon used to have the
sound value of around [o:] (closed variant of o!) before it shifted
towards [u:], while omega must've been more open [O:], similar to
epsilon/iota [e:] vs. eta [E:].
It makes sense, though, that those Greek->Latin loans that are spelled
with <y> perhaps happened after the shift of the sound value [u]
towards [y], else the loans could've been transscribed with <u>.
>--tcr.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
"drewc" wrote:
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> Etymologically, -ize makes better sense than -ise,
>> being nearer to its Greek roots.
>
> Only english got the '-ise' suffix via the french (infact most, in not
> all, the english words ending in 'ise' are french words.) :)
Hmm, maybe. So the question would be: if you go way back
in the history of English, was "-ise" or "-ize" more
common? I have no idea.
>> "Analyze", however, makes no sense at all. :-)
>
> From the greek! "analusis" via the french 'analyse'.
Exactly. Which is why it's crazy to spell it with a "z".
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
William Bland wrote:
> All and any thoughts very welcome.
I'd like to have contributed to this interesting thread,
but your message exceeded the width of my card punch so
I was unable to respond.
Best wishes.
"Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
····················@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> William Bland wrote:
>
> > All and any thoughts very welcome.
>
> I'd like to have contributed to this interesting thread,
> but your message exceeded the width of my card punch so
> I was unable to respond.
>
> Best wishes.
I'm just trying to visualize how this works.
You submit your (well worn) job deck to the admins down by the RJE to print
out the lastest posts from c.l.l.
After about 2 hours, you head down to ehe bins and see your deck and it's
printout.
Then you head back down to the punch card machine, meticulously key in your
response, add the (again well worn) 4 cards of your "sig", and hand that job
off to the admins.
Hopefully it'll get run sometime tonight.
No wonder USENET didn't really take off back in the late 70's! :-)
Though I do recall a friend playing "Lunar Lander"^W^WLunar Descent
Simulator written in FORTRAN IV via punched cards, adding a new "burn card"
after each run.
Only burned up about a 1/2 box of paper, but at least you're able to
readjust your burn program everytime you plow into the lunar surface.
I noticed though that you have one of those new card punches since your post
DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THIS.
Or do you have that setting where you only ^HAVE ^TO ^ESCAPE ^THE ^CAPITAL
^LETTERS? (That's what our CYBER 730 needed...)
:-)
Regards,
Will Hartung
(·····@msoft.com -- who thankfully only did one project on punch cards...but
have had the "pleasure" of dropping a couple of users several hundred card
decks on the floor. "You had those numbered, right?")
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:13:44 -0800, Will Hartung wrote:
..
> (·····@msoft.com -- who thankfully only did one project on punch cards...but
> have had the "pleasure" of dropping a couple of users several hundred card
> decks on the floor. "You had those numbered, right?")
Don't keep us in suspense - were they? :)
+ Jeremiah Bullfrog <········@hotmail.com>:
| On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:13:44 -0800, Will Hartung wrote:
| ..
| > (·····@msoft.com -- who thankfully only did one project on punch
| > cards...but have had the "pleasure" of dropping a couple of users
| > several hundred card decks on the floor. "You had those numbered,
| > right?")
|
| Don't keep us in suspense - were they? :)
Probably not. As a student, I always meticulously numbered my own
pathetic less-than-100 card decks, but no one ever dropped one of
those on the floor. The only cases I ever heard of were unnumbered.
I think there's a law hiding in these anecdotal facts.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: I can't bear it - were the cards numbered?
Date:
Message-ID: <m31xbwdyiu.fsf@javamonkey.com>
Harald Hanche-Olsen <······@math.ntnu.no> writes:
> + Jeremiah Bullfrog <········@hotmail.com>:
>
> | On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:13:44 -0800, Will Hartung wrote:
> | ..
> | > (·····@msoft.com -- who thankfully only did one project on punch
> | > cards...but have had the "pleasure" of dropping a couple of users
> | > several hundred card decks on the floor. "You had those numbered,
> | > right?")
> |
> | Don't keep us in suspense - were they? :)
>
> Probably not. As a student, I always meticulously numbered my own
> pathetic less-than-100 card decks, but no one ever dropped one of
> those on the floor. The only cases I ever heard of were unnumbered.
> I think there's a law hiding in these anecdotal facts.
I thought the cool kids squared up the deck and then drew a diagonal
line across the top of the deck which made putting a scrambled deck
back in order a matter of making the line line up. Or is that just a
myth.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
"Peter Seibel" <·····@javamonkey.com> wrote in message
···················@javamonkey.com...
> Harald Hanche-Olsen <······@math.ntnu.no> writes:
> > Probably not. As a student, I always meticulously numbered my own
> > pathetic less-than-100 card decks, but no one ever dropped one of
> > those on the floor. The only cases I ever heard of were unnumbered.
> > I think there's a law hiding in these anecdotal facts.
>
> I thought the cool kids squared up the deck and then drew a diagonal
> line across the top of the deck which made putting a scrambled deck
> back in order a matter of making the line line up. Or is that just a
> myth.
Sounds clever, but it only tends to work once.
I mean, I guess if you had access to a punch machine that would generate
your deck for you from source code on the machine, it would be handy, but
for we poor slobs who basically edited our programs by moving cards around,
that line wouldn't last very long.
As for dropping the deck, I'm pretty confident there's an inverse proportion
of probability of your deck being dropped in relation to how many of your
cards were numbered with a multiplier of how late your project was. The
decks I dropped tended to met with stark horror, so I think there was less
numbering than could have been desired.
I never had the ..umm.. pleasure of using Lisp on punch cards. I'm sure some
poor soul had that dubious honor. Holy "Matching Paren" Hell. I guess the
hot tip would be to reserve the last 5 chars of the card for a line number
(i.e. ;0010). Also, the Lisp on the Cyber used a ']' as a "close all open
parens" character, something that would probably make it a bit easier to use
with a card deck.
On the bright side, punch cards were great material for budding Cardboard
Engineers, and the little punches were cheap geek confetti.
Regards,
Will Hartung
(·····@msoft.com)
In article <···············@individual.net>,
"Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> wrote:
> I never had the ..umm.. pleasure of using Lisp on punch cards. I'm sure some
> poor soul had that dubious honor.
Anyone who did Lisp at Stanford in the early 70's
on the main campus (as opposed to the AI lab out
in the hills) probably submitted quite a few
Lisp batch jobs via punch card.
EVALQUOTE syntax too.
And was it all uppercase? Memory dims.
+ "Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com>:
| On the bright side, punch cards were great material for budding Cardboard
| Engineers, and the little punches were cheap geek confetti.
And they were wonderful for making notes, as bookmarks etc.
I still have a few lying about.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
Will Hartung wrote:
>>I thought the cool kids squared up the deck and then drew a diagonal
>>line across the top of the deck which made putting a scrambled deck
>>back in order a matter of making the line line up. Or is that just a
>>myth.
>
>
> Sounds clever, but it only tends to work once.
Not so. It works a very large number of times. When the line's validity
becomes too sketchy because of insertions and deletions, one would cross
it off and make another. This could be done several times on each of the
four edges of the deck, so real estate was rarely a limitation.
> I mean, I guess if you had access to a punch machine that would generate
> your deck for you from source code on the machine,
Source code on the machine? Machines of that age had no permanent memory.
Bulk I/O was done by 7-track magtape, but code was never stored on the
machine. But there were entires stand-alone machines whose typical use was
listing card decks or reproducing card decks. These machines were in
principle programming machines that could be programmed to accumulate
fields and do various other tasks, sometimes involving repeated passes of
the card deck through the machine(s). At my first programming job I
actually solved a simple task generating a particular deck of cards using
an IBM 519. These were programmed by inserting plug wires into holes in
a removable programming board. The advantage of using these devices instead
of an actual computer was that these utility machines weren't billed, but
computer time itself could cost a dollar or more a minute -- big bucks in
the mid-60's.
http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-ibm-519-reproducing-card-punch.jpg
The programming board is visible on the lower left. The first versions of
this machine appears in 1946, one source said, so they were already old
technology when I first used them 15 years later.
+ "Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu>:
| But there were entires stand-alone machines whose typical use was
| listing card decks or reproducing card decks.
Ah, I remember those. I only used them for one task, but they were
very handy for that: If you had run out of spaces in the numbering
sequence in which to insert new cards, you could reproduce your deck
of cards while renumbering it. This could be done on the card punches
too, if I recall correctly, but then you had to manually feed in the
old deck a card at a time.
| http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-ibm-519-reproducing-card-punch.jpg
Interesting site.
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: I can't bear it - were the cards numbered?
Date:
Message-ID: <ymi65142rpa.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
"Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> writes:
> I never had the ..umm.. pleasure of using Lisp on punch cards. I'm sure some
> poor soul had that dubious honor. Holy "Matching Paren" Hell.
Well, I've never had to do that either, but I suppose one could always
try to err on the low side and have lots of cards with single
parentheses on them to slip in at the right place.
-Tom (running and ducking now)
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: Karl A. Krueger
Subject: Re: I can't bear it - were the cards numbered?
Date:
Message-ID: <cu8oj4$q2l$1@baldur.whoi.edu>
Thomas A. Russ <···@sevak.isi.edu> wrote:
> "Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> writes:
>> I never had the ..umm.. pleasure of using Lisp on punch cards. I'm sure some
>> poor soul had that dubious honor. Holy "Matching Paren" Hell.
>
> Well, I've never had to do that either, but I suppose one could always
> try to err on the low side and have lots of cards with single
> parentheses on them to slip in at the right place.
Oh, so *that's* where this behavior came from:
)
)
)
)
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu> { s/example/whoi/ }
If lots of people are doing something, and it isn't working for them,
don't expect that you're special and that it will work for you.
From: Antonio Menezes Leitao
Subject: Re: I can't bear it - were the cards numbered?
Date:
Message-ID: <87k6pjbbt1.fsf@gia.ist.utl.pt>
"Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
> Thomas A. Russ <···@sevak.isi.edu> wrote:
>> "Will Hartung" <·····@msoft.com> writes:
>>> I never had the ..umm.. pleasure of using Lisp on punch cards. I'm
>>> sure some poor soul had that dubious honor. Holy "Matching Paren"
>>> Hell.
>>
>> Well, I've never had to do that either, but I suppose one could
>> always try to err on the low side and have lots of cards with
>> single parentheses on them to slip in at the right place.
>
> Oh, so *that's* where this behavior came from:
>
> )
> )
> )
> )
>
A long time ago, I had the pleasure of working with FranzLisp on a
VAX-VMS. The VMS editor didn't help with matching parens so it was
easy to misplace a paren. To make things worse, (IIRC) FranzLisp on
the VAX had the annoying feature of changing its input stream to the
terminal when he couldn't read anymore from a file (it didn't matter
if it was in the middle of an expression).
Now, suppose you are loading a lisp file and it is taking too long for
the Lisp prompt to appear. It could be either because the system was
under heavy load (the VAXes were time-shared machines and could have
dozens of users working at the same time)...or because your lisp file
has a missing paren.
So, either you wait still more time, hoping it will finish loading, or
you start thinking that there is a missing paren somewhere and the
lisp reader is blocked at the terminal. So you put a ')' on the
terminal and press return to see what happens. If the prompt doesn't
appear, you conclude that the Lisp process is still loading the
file...or there's another missing paren.
You can guess what your terminal looks like after a while.
Ant�nio Leit�o.
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:03:34 -0800, Will Hartung <·····@msoft.com> wrote:
I seem to have a vague rememberence that merge sort was mechaincally
implemented.
Thus partial ordering, as you would get if putting a diagonal line
across the deck, would help considerably.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:24:51 GMT, Peter Seibel <·····@javamonkey.com>
wrote:
>
>I thought the cool kids squared up the deck and then drew a diagonal
>line across the top of the deck which made putting a scrambled deck
>back in order a matter of making the line line up. Or is that just a
>myth.
>
I'm not old enough to remember cards but my father reports that he
used both line and numbering on his Fortran program decks.
He says the line wasn't enough, you had to number also - but the line
allowed a first pass sort that quickly restored most of the order to a
spilled deck. Then you could finish sorting by the numbers several
cards at a time.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: I can't bear it - were the cards numbered?
Date:
Message-ID: <ymi7jlk2rrs.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
Peter Seibel <·····@javamonkey.com> writes:
>
> I thought the cool kids squared up the deck and then drew a diagonal
> line across the top of the deck which made putting a scrambled deck
> back in order a matter of making the line line up. Or is that just a
> myth.
I used to do that, but I never dropped a deck, so I can't comment on how
successful it would have been.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
William Bland <·······@abstractnonsense.com> writes:
> (defun do-preamble (in out)
> (let ((line nil))
> (loop until (or (eq *EOF*
> (setf line
> (read-line-as-list in
> (make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab)))))
> (null line)) do
> (compile-preamble line))
> (write-preamble out)))
I know you're rewriting the code, but the following would be a way to
indent the code so it stays under 80 columns. I don't like it when I
have to do this but every now and then it comes up.
(defun do-preamble (in out)
(let ((line nil))
(loop until (or (eq *EOF*
(setf line
(read-line-as-list
in
(make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab)))))
(null line)) do
(compile-preamble line))
(write-preamble out)))
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Do you know how it feels to be evil? It feels *normal*. A
conscience is so easily seared. -- "Nick"
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> (defun do-preamble (in out)
> (let ((line nil))
> (loop until (or (eq *EOF*
> (setf line
> (read-line-as-list
> in
> (make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab)))))
> (null line)) do
> (compile-preamble line))
> (write-preamble out)))
I hesitate to share this with the general public but I've been playing
with the idea of considering a silly little macro.
(defmacro as (&body forms)
"(AS F ARGS) => (F ARGS). What's the point? Indents as
(AS F-IS-REALLY-THE-NAME-OF-AN-OBNOXIOUSLY-NAMED-FUNCTION
ARGS)
Instead of
(F-IS-REALLY-THE-NAME-OF-AN-OBNOXIOUSLY-NAMED-FUNCTION
ARGS)
This looks more like function call indentation. I'm not even sure I like
the idea of this macro as I'm writing it."
`(,@forms))
So that instead of
(read-line-as-list
in
(make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab)))
one could write something like the following, for example
(as read-line-as-list
in (as make-simple-tokeniser
'(#\Space #\Tab)))
As if AS was the macro version of APPLY. Is this just obnoxious?
Should I just denounce my former AS ways and throw myself at the mercy
of the Lispnik party?
Damien Kick wrote:
> I hesitate to share this with the general public but I've been playing
> with the idea of considering a silly little macro.
...
> So that instead of
>
> (read-line-as-list
> in
> (make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab)))
>
> one could write something like the following, for example
>
> (as read-line-as-list
> in (as make-simple-tokeniser
> '(#\Space #\Tab)))
>
> As if AS was the macro version of APPLY. Is this just obnoxious?
> Should I just denounce my former AS ways and throw myself at the mercy
> of the Lispnik party?
It's a cute hack, and it solves what I agree is a real problem, but the
problem OUGHT to be solved in the emacs mode's indenting code.
...thinks...
I suspect that the mode doesn't keep track of which initial atoms are
functions and which are data. Adding that might be a fair bit of work.
Could one not change things so that hitting tab a second time in this
situation moves the point to the preferred indentation? That would
strike me as reasonable behaviour, and probably easy to do... but I'm no
emacs hacker.
What I've always thought would be cool would be an IDE that displays
code with indentation that matches the current width of the window in
which it is being viewed. The underlying code itself might even be
stored in a file as a single line (using ";" to get Google Groups to
maintain indentation).
; (defun foo # (use-this ...)) (defun bar # #) (defun baz # #)
But the editor-function display would automagically apply identing to
make the code do the Right Thing for whatever width of whatever window
was being used; i.e. think pretty printing behavior for different
versions of *PRINT-MISER-WIDTH*. If one had a narrow-width window, one
would get
; (defun
; foo
; (x y z)
; (use-this ...))
but if one had a normal-width window, one would see
; (defun foo (x y z)
; (use-this ...))
Kenny, get the open-source fairy to start working on this ASAP.
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: Following the 80-column rule
Date:
Message-ID: <87zmyjofma.fsf@nyct.net>
"dkixk" <·····@earthlink.net> writes:
> What I've always thought would be cool would be an IDE that displays
> code with indentation that matches the current width of the window in
> which it is being viewed. The underlying code itself might even be
> stored in a file as a single line (using ";" to get Google Groups to
> maintain indentation).
That is one of my main goals with DefEditor.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
On 4 Feb 2005 14:48:51 -0800, dkixk <·····@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What I've always thought would be cool would be an IDE that displays
> code with indentation that matches the current width of the window in
> which it is being viewed. The underlying code itself might even be
> stored in a file as a single line (using ";" to get Google Groups to
> maintain indentation).
>
> ; (defun foo # (use-this ...)) (defun bar # #) (defun baz # #)
>
> But the editor-function display would automagically apply identing to
> make the code do the Right Thing for whatever width of whatever window
> was being used; i.e. think pretty printing behavior for different
> versions of *PRINT-MISER-WIDTH*. If one had a narrow-width window, one
> would get
>
> ; (defun
> ; foo
> ; (x y z)
> ; (use-this ...))
>
> but if one had a normal-width window, one would see
>
> ; (defun foo (x y z)
> ; (use-this ...))
>
> Kenny, get the open-source fairy to start working on this ASAP.
>
How about a hint that allows the editor
to break the standard indentation rules
(defun do-preamble (in out)
(let ((line nil))
(loop until (or (eq *EOF*
(setf line
(read-line-as-list in
(make-simple-tokeniser
'(#\Space #\Tab)))))
(null line)) do
(compile-preamble line))
(write-preamble out)))
to:
(defun do-preamble (in out)
(let ((line nil))
(loop until
! (or (eq *EOF*
! (setf line (read-line-as-list in
! (make-simple-tokeniser '(#\Space #\Tab)))))
! (null line)) do
(compile-preamble line))
(write-preamble out)))
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Following the 80-column rule
Date:
Message-ID: <uzmykn9ov.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
William Bland <·······@abstractnonsense.com> writes:
> I try to follow the 80-column rule with other languages I use, and I've
> been assuming that it is good style to continue doing so in Lisp.
I don't believe in this rule for Lisp, although my code
does not often exceed 90 characters. I haven't usually had
to edit Lisp source files on such limited screens since 1981.
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> William Bland <·······@abstractnonsense.com> writes:
> > I try to follow the 80-column rule with other languages I use, and I've
> > been assuming that it is good style to continue doing so in Lisp.
>
> I don't believe in this rule for Lisp, although my code
> does not often exceed 90 characters. I haven't usually had
> to edit Lisp source files on such limited screens since 1981.
Unfortunately, on my small 1280x1024 screen, I cannot put more than 80
readable characters if I want to have two windows side by side. I'd
need a second screen, but then I'm affraid I'd need a new neck too...
There's a reason why typographers invented two-column pagination.
Perhaps we should flow our code on into two-column pages...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Until real software engineering is developed, the next best practice
is to develop with a dynamic system that has extreme late binding in
all aspects. The first system to really do this in an important way
is Lisp. -- Alan Kay
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately, on my small 1280x1024 screen, I cannot put more than 80
>readable characters if I want to have two windows side by side. I'd
>need a second screen, but then I'm affraid I'd need a new neck too...
Well, it is cheaper and easier than ever to have dual displays.
I really like it. I'll have some documentation (PDFs or a web browser)
up on one monitor. And in the other monitor I have my main editing
window (132x63), and the compile and run windows.
I really like using konsole as my xterm, because you can switch between
windows with a Shift-LArrow or Shift-RArrow.
James Graves
In article <············@new7.xnet.com>,
·······@typhoon.xnet.com (James Graves) wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, on my small 1280x1024 screen, I cannot put more than 80
> >readable characters if I want to have two windows side by side. I'd
> >need a second screen, but then I'm affraid I'd need a new neck too...
>
> Well, it is cheaper and easier than ever to have dual displays.
And you never plan to share your code with people who
have single displays? Or work with multiple windows?
Or work with an IDE with tools on the left? Or are
doing a side-by-side diff of two files?
I stick to 72 or less, not because that's my limit,
but because a program is not an island.
Chris Riesbeck wrote:
> In article <············@new7.xnet.com>,
> ·······@typhoon.xnet.com (James Graves) wrote:
>
>
>>Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Unfortunately, on my small 1280x1024 screen, I cannot put more than 80
>>>readable characters if I want to have two windows side by side. I'd
>>>need a second screen, but then I'm affraid I'd need a new neck too...
>>
>>Well, it is cheaper and easier than ever to have dual displays.
>
>
> And you never plan to share your code with people who
> have single displays? Or work with multiple windows?
> Or work with an IDE with tools on the left? Or are
> doing a side-by-side diff of two files?
>
> I stick to 72 or less, not because that's my limit,
> but because a program is not an island.
If you're specifically trying to get an open source project off the
ground and want to be able to solicit code from as wide a group as
possible, excluding nobody, then yours is a reasonable attitude to take.
If however 90% of the time spent staring at the code will be spent by
you and your team members, all of whom are hi-rez, then it seems
reasonable to attach a weighting factor to the preferences of the
majority, and let the low-rez losers fend for themselves.
Maybe somebody should write a Lisp code formatter or pretty printer or
something so they could accommodate the new wide-style code to their
puny narrow angle view ports? ;-)
Hello!
Chris Riesbeck <·········@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[...]
>I stick to 72 or less, not because that's my limit,
>but because a program is not an island.
I do use full 80 characters, but not more, with the same thought.
Just I don't see why I should detract even 8 characters more.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
······@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter) writes:
> Hello!
>
> Chris Riesbeck <·········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >I stick to 72 or less, not because that's my limit,
> >but because a program is not an island.
>
> I do use full 80 characters, but not more, with the same thought.
> Just I don't see why I should detract even 8 characters more.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Hannah.
Obviously, you need the last 8 columns to punch the card number. You
never know when somebody would drop the deck. (Or in our modern days,
run: sort -o pgm.lisp pgm.lisp
or something similar).
;; M948-1207 LEVIN, LISP, TEST, 2,3,250,0 00000000
;; TEST WANG ALGORITHM FOR THE PROPOSITIONAL CALCULUS 00000010
00000020
;; see: http://green.iis.nsk.su/%257Evp/doc/lisp1.5/node36.html 00000030
00000040
00000050
;; theorem takes a s-exp of the form: (ARROW antecedents consequents) 00000060
;; with both antecedents and consequents lists of propositions composed 00000070
;; (NOT phi), (AND phi psy) (OR phi psy) (IMPLIES phi psy) and (EQUIV ph00000080
;; or proposition symbol. 00000090
00000100
(defun theorem (s) 00000110
(th1 nil nil (cadr s) (caddr s))) 00000120
00000130
00000140
(defun th1 (a1 a2 a c) 00000150
(cond ((null a) (th2 a1 a2 nil nil c)) 00000160
(t (or (member (car a) c) 00000170
(cond ((atom (car a)) 00000180
(th1 (cond ((member (car a) a1) a1) 00000190
(t (cons (car a) a1))) a2 (cdr a) c)) 00000200
(t (th1 a1 (cond ((member (car a) a2) a2) 00000210
(t (cons (car a) a2))) (cdr a) c))00000220
00000230
;; oops ...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Litter box not here.
You must have moved it again.
I'll poop in the sink.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I desire 132-column windows
because a lot of the programming I do is in C. And I use 8-column tabs,
so you can run out of space pretty quick, even in an uncomplicated
function if you restrict yourself to 80 columns. And all the developers
at my company have displays which can run at least 1280x1024.
For Lisp code, most of the stuff I've seen uses 2 space indentation,
which is the default on my editor too. I'll be sticking with that for
now, to see how that goes. So I won't be exceeding 80 columns quite so
often.
Cheers,
James Graves
Hello!
James Graves <·······@xnet.com> wrote:
>Well, if it makes you feel any better, I desire 132-column windows
>because a lot of the programming I do is in C. And I use 8-column tabs,
>so you can run out of space pretty quick, even in an uncomplicated
>function if you restrict yourself to 80 columns. And all the developers
>at my company have displays which can run at least 1280x1024.
Even in C, the code smells badly if you need to exceed 80 columns.
Been there, done that, I'm quite strict with 80 columns and 8-column
tabs also at work (mostly C/C++).
>For Lisp code, most of the stuff I've seen uses 2 space indentation,
>which is the default on my editor too. I'll be sticking with that for
>now, to see how that goes. So I won't be exceeding 80 columns quite so
>often.
Right. And if you do, you should usually think of refactoring, just the
same as in C/C++.
>Cheers,
>James Graves
Kind regards,
Hannah.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Following the 80-column rule
Date:
Message-ID: <uoeelobtk.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
······@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter) writes:
> Hello!
>
> James Graves <·······@xnet.com> wrote:
> >Well, if it makes you feel any better, I desire 132-column windows
> >because a lot of the programming I do is in C. And I use 8-column tabs,
> >so you can run out of space pretty quick, even in an uncomplicated
> >function if you restrict yourself to 80 columns. And all the developers
> >at my company have displays which can run at least 1280x1024.
>
> Even in C, the code smells badly if you need to exceed 80 columns.
I was about to concur with an 80 column limit for C,
but I went to look at the most recent program I wrote in C.
It was for Windows, and a few of the lines are 90 characters.
Those were function prototypes and print (logging) statements,
and had rather long names (like EVENTLOG_INFORMATION_TYPE),
and they looked very nice when all on one line.
The longest line was this one, coming in at 114:
LServServiceStatusHandle = RegisterServiceCtrlHandler(serviceName, (LPHANDLER_FUNCTION) LServServiceCtrlHandler);
James Graves schrieb:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >Unfortunately, on my small 1280x1024 screen, I cannot put more than 80
> >readable characters if I want to have two windows side by side. I'd
> >need a second screen, but then I'm affraid I'd need a new neck too...
> Well, it is cheaper and easier than ever to have dual displays.
> I really like it. I'll have some documentation (PDFs or a web browser)
> up on one monitor. And in the other monitor I have my main editing
> window (132x63), and the compile and run windows.
> I really like using konsole as my xterm, because you can switch between
> windows with a Shift-LArrow or Shift-RArrow.
Better one use the UPArrow and the DWNArrow hm?
I missed that big old display on my desk, it now looks so empty and
big...
So why not make the display like transparent glas and set one behind the
other, you can have 5 of them by looking down.
:)
/_/_/_/...
Sure, you can wait till they sell threeheaded cards or use 3 notebooks
with one keyboard.
stefan