On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 11:25:39 -0500, P S wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
However, when I mount a Samba share from a UNIX host and some
directory there contains foobar, FooBar, foo,bar, etc.,
Explorer should display those names as faithfully as possible as
they
In 201001022133.o02lxeva031...@imr-mb02.mx.aol.com, on 01/02/2010
at 02:33 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Are you suggesting that diacritical marks should be
considered embellishments, lacking semantic significance?
I suspect that he's suggesting transforming to a
In listserv%201001011741487253.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 01/01/2010
at 05:41 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
So, in some environments, font sensitivity is with us;
ITYM code-page sensitivity, and if we ever switch to Unicode[1] then that
issue should disappear as well.
(OS X and
Good point. I'm definitely Anglophone biased, as the only language I know is
English or rather American English. While I did ponder about code pages for
other languages, I felt that any comment would probably be opening my mouth
and inserting my foot. It seems I managed to do that anyway.
Early
2010/1/1 Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:28:16 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
I guess the order is aAbBcCdD and so on.
Actually, no. Not according to a couple dictionaries I glanced at,
and OpenSolaris:
509 $ ls -1
castor
Castor
castor bean
510 $
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:26:04 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote:
Sorting is a cultural thing (where culture can include C programming
as much as French-in-France, French-in-Canada, English, German, etc.)
And each culture may have multiple sort orders appropriate for
different circumstances. For example
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
Ask a Spanish speaker whether año is the same as ano.
No, they're different letters. It may be clear from context, but the two are
no more the same than awe and ave in English. A better question might be
to ask a French
I'm trying this again, with a different technique:
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 15:26:04 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote:
Sorting is a cultural thing (where culture can include C programming
as much as French-in-France, French-in-Canada, English, German, etc.)
And each culture may have multiple sort orders
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
I'm trying this again, with a different technique:
Da, document in Cyrillic came through that time, rather than as whatever.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
How would I tell my USS shell how to sort based on a particular language?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
P S
Sent: 2. tammikuuta 2010 23:24
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:36:55 -0500, P S wrote:
Da, document in Cyrillic came through that time, rather than as whatever.
Спасибо.
An update (I hope):
520 $ ( LANG=en_US.UTF-8 ls -1 foo )
ДОКУМЕНТЫ
Документы
ДОКУМЕНТЫ x
Документы x
ano
año
ano x
año x
Caesar
Cæsar
Caesar x
Cæsar x
castor
2010/1/2 Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com:
OK. As Shane suggested, it depends on Locale setting (same for
DFSORT). With OpenSolaris's default (whatever):
506 $ ls -1
#1044;#1086;#1082;#1091;#1084;#1077;#1085;#1090;#1099;
Caesar
Cæsar
castor
Castor
castor bean
castor-oil
Noel
On Thu, 2009-12-31 at 23:33 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:28:16 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
You're right it is not really insensitive. The lower case appears before the
upper case of a given character. I.e. apple is before Apple. My bad
terminology. I guess the order
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:07:22 +1000, Shane wrote:
Depends on LC_COLLATE - try setting it to C and see what happens.
I see. Thank you for educating me.
Also, I RTFM and find:
9.2.9.3 z/OS V1R10.0 DFSORT Application Programming Guide
9.2.9.3 LOCALE
You can use the LOCALE
option to
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 01:56:15 -0500, P S wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Which is why I suggested keeping all alphabetic characters in a single
case, followed by a bitmap identifying the case of the characters.
Case-insensitive lookup would ignore the bitmap; case
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.comwrote:
I said earlier in the thread:
Wow, I never saw this post...weird.
However, when I mount a Samba share from a UNIX host and some
directory there contains foobar, FooBar, foo,bar, etc.,
Explorer should display those
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 11:25:39 -0500, P S wrote:
should type the content of the respective file.
Jeez, I *really* worry that it sounds like I'm being argumentative here, but
I don't mean to be -- AFAICT, this is how it works. So I'm still not sure
what it is you dislike about how Windows works
Imagine extending case sensitivity to font sensitivity. If the file system
allowed file names to be font sensitive, so that font characteristics like
bold, italics, underline, color, etc. made a difference. Then foo [in blue],
foo [in red], foo [in green] would be different files. Just think how
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:07:43 -0500, Don Williams wrote:
Imagine extending case sensitivity to font sensitivity. If the file system
allowed file names to be font sensitive, so that font characteristics like
bold, italics, underline, color, etc. made a difference. Then foo [in blue],
foo [in red],
In listserv%200912311444337543.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 12/31/2009
at 02:44 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Long ago, I experimented with STOW from assembler. It uncomplainingly
creates member names in mixed case, and worse.
Worse, SMP depended on being able to do that.
--
In listserv%200912302213586445.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 12/30/2009
at 10:13 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
What objective would be served by converting to lower case?
Handling mixed-case input. Even if you tell people not to do it, you can't
stop them.
--
Shmuel (Seymour
In 45d79eacefba9b428e3d400e924d36b902e56...@iwdubcormsg007.sci.local, on
12/31/2009
at 12:08 PM, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com said:
I think that the case munging of some things was due to the 3277.
Didn't it go back to the 1050, the 2260, the 2740 and the TTY?
And the caps
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:13:58 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:48:38 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
Instead, TSO would convert to lower case. I don't see how that would be
any better. The proper design would have been to be case independent from
the get-go; S/360
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:39:13 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:13:58 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
What objective would be served by converting to lower case?
Easier parsing. If everything input is all in one case, it is a bit easier
to parse the commands and options entered.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
SNIPPAGE
I called it a fantasia. UNIX has done
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.comwrote:
UNIX has done well without pervasive case munging.
You misspelled despite as without :-(
I often wonder how many millions of man-hours and real dollars have been
lost due to case-sensitivity in *IX. I've repeatedly
, 2009 10:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:39:13 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:13:58 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
What objective would be served by converting to lower case?
Easier
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
I think that the case munging of some things was due
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of P S
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:56 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paul Gilmartin
On 31 Dec 2009 07:40:03 -0800, m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com (Tom Marchant)
wrote:
What objective would be served by converting to lower case?
Easier parsing. If everything input is all in one case, it is a bit easier
to parse the commands and options entered.
Significantly easier?
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:55:33 -0500, Thompson, Steve wrote:
However, systems that are built based on prior functioning code and
ideas of how things should be done, now get the shaft because we now
take it that ONE IS SHOUTING BY USING ALL UPPER CASE AS IT USED TO BE.
IN FACT, MIXED CASE IS A NEW
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
On 31 Dec 2009 07:40:03 -0800, m42tom-ibmm
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:08 PM, McKown, John
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
Hum, I have exactly the opposite opinion. I dislike Windows' case
preserving but case ignoring feature. I think that Mac OSX is like
Windows in this as well (and it is UNIX based). If it is going to ignore
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:13:53 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote:
On 31 Dec 2009 07:40:03 -0800, Tom Marchant wrote:
What objective would be served by converting to lower case?
Easier parsing. If everything input is all in one case, it is a bit easier
to parse the commands and options entered.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:50:05 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:39:13 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:13:58 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
What objective would be served by converting to lower case?
Easier parsing. If everything input is all in one case, it is
The Radio Shack TRS-80 was Upper Case only as delivered;
I remember opening the case and mounting a switch on the
bottom (from Radio Shack, of course) and soldering it so
that the editor recognized lower case, so my 1980 book,
written on that machine, had mixed case.
Of course, the OS didn't
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of P S
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:35 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
OK, *not* trying to start a war, honestly curious
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:55:33 -0500, Thompson
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:35:15 -0500, P S wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:08 PM, McKown, John wrote:
Hum, I have exactly the opposite opinion. I dislike Windows' case
preserving but case ignoring feature. I think that Mac OSX is like
Windows in this as well (and it is UNIX based). If it is
Paul Gilmartin wrote (snipped):
Long ago, I experimented with STOW from assembler. It uncomplainingly
creates member names in mixed case, and worse. At that time, I could
operate on such members by selecting them from a member menu, but not
by typing the names on the command line, whether
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.comwrote:
OK, *not* trying to start a war, honestly curious: why do you dislike it?
Ease in sorting and searching. If I were implementing such a filesystem,
I'd store the names in a single case followed by a bitmap indicating
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of P S
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 3:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Paul Gilmartin
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:14 PM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
wrote:
Most LINUX applications also display the filenames with a case insensitive
sort. Like the ls command. And Konquerer, Dolphin.
Good. I was starting to feel funny, holding up Windows as a shining
example...!
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:14:41 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of P S
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 3:12 PM
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I'd store the names in a single case followed by a bitmap
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 3:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
SNIP
Most LINUX applications also display
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:28 PM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
wrote:
You're right it is not really insensitive. The lower case appears before
the upper case of a given character. I.e. apple is before Apple. My bad
terminology. I guess the order is aAbBcCdD and so on.
While
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of P S
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 3:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CAPS Fantasia (was: argv for z/OS C++ batch)
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:28 PM, McKown, John
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:28:16 -0600, McKown, John wrote:
You're right it is not really insensitive. The lower case appears before the
upper case of a given character. I.e. apple is before Apple. My bad
terminology. I guess the order is aAbBcCdD and so on.
Actually, no. Not according to a
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.comwrote:
Which is why I suggested keeping all alphabetic characters in a single
case, followed by a bitmap identifying the case of the characters.
Case-insensitive lookup would ignore the bitmap; case sensitive would
consider
On Thu, 2009-12-31 at 23:33 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Actually, no. Not according to a couple dictionaries I glanced at,
and OpenSolaris:
509 $ ls -1
castor
Castor
castor bean
510 $
What does Linux do?
Depends on LC_COLLATE - try setting it to C and see what
In listserv%200912291128236561.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 12/29/2009
at 11:28 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
Wouldn't it have been glorious if the original definition of 6-bit BCD
had specified lower case alphabetics _instead_of_ upper case?
Plus a change, plus c'est la mme chose.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:48:38 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In listserv%200912291128236561.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 12/29/2009
at 11:28 AM, Paul Gilmartin said:
Wouldn't it have been glorious if the original definition of 6-bit BCD
had specified lower case alphabetics _instead_of_ upper
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:01:32 -0500, Charles Mills wrote:
- Yes, I'm clear on the difference between the restrictions imposed by PARM=
(one parm, 100 chars), TSO (a tendency to convert to U/C, and yes, I agree
with gil, over-compensating by converting to l/c when ASIS is specified is
just brain
for z/OS C++ batch)
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:01:32 -0500, Charles Mills wrote:
- Yes, I'm clear on the difference between the restrictions imposed by
PARM=
(one parm, 100 chars), TSO (a tendency to convert to U/C, and yes, I agree
with gil, over-compensating by converting to l/c when ASIS is specified
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:43:48 -0500, Charles Mills wrote:
Would UNIX then have used all upper case just to be different?
It's plausible. It might have been swayed in that direction by the
Teletype KSR33, which generates only upper case codes while 7-bit
ASCII defines both upper and lower case.
55 matches
Mail list logo
