<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point is the format of the field. > I just wondered if it did or did not recognize ##E# as a format. > From what I hear the answer is no. Of course if I got a value of > 1.112E3 that would NOT be a HUGE value (not good) but it is valid yet > analog would not like it so I need to change my LOGFORMAT from what I see.
But it wouldn't be "valid" for a field that is defined as an Integer (%T) or a fixed format number (%t). That's not to say that Stephen couldn't or shouldn't add the functionality to Analog to parse such a field. But, depending on the source of the log, it might make more sense to "fix" the program that's producing the output, rather than applying the fix to Analog. What application is producing the logs? Aengus +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this | mailing list, go to | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/unsubscribe.html | | List archives are available at | http://www.mail-archive.com/analog-help@lists.isite.net/ | http://lists.isite.net/listgate/analog-help/archives/ | http://www.tallylist.com/archives/index.cfm/mlist.7 +------------------------------------------------------------------------
