This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. The
following address(es) failed:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Disc quota exceeded:
retry timeout exceeded
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mauve.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.38] ident=exim)
by red.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1)
id 11yByX-0005pr-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:48:05 +0000
Received: from [208.156.39.203] (helo=BFLITEMAIL4)
by mauve.csi.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.03 #1)
id 11yByV-0000DP-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:48:03 +0000
Received: from deck.metacard.com ([209.180.240.46])
by BFLITEMAIL4.bigfoot.com (LiteMail v1.3 (4)) with SMTP id
15Dec1999_BFLITEMAIL4_17520_96047562;
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 05:48:35 -0500 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by deck.metacard.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA28824
for xtalk-digest-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:13:06 -0700
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:13:06 -0700
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Authentication-Warning: deck.metacard.com: majordomo set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (xtalk)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: xtalk V1 #348
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
xtalk Wednesday, December 15 1999 Volume 01 : Number 348
In this issue:
Re: Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
Re: Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 19:36:40 +0100
From: "M. Uli Kusterer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
>Except when UNIX people refer to "console", it's almost always as the
>keyboard and screen physically attached to the computer and never as
>where a process gets its input and output. So you never want to do
>anything specific to a "console". This terminology is more commonly
>(and incorrectly) used on Windows to refer to the character-based
>input/output from DOS applications. But MetaCard support for this on
>Win32 an issue there because of the forced graphical/console
>dichotomy.
Scott,
being UI-crazed myself I don't mind if you leave out "console". If it's
really just a Unix feature, I understand that it's not documented in a way
so people of other platforms understand it. If "stdin" and "stdout" are
commonly used terms in Unix, that's of course the better choice.
>So is CGI, and compatibility with the terminology used for that is far
>more important than trying to "disguise" it by giving it non-matching
>"user friendly" names. Allowing the full names sounds like a good
>idea, though.
Since the app I'm working on is a text-only screen-centric program, not a
CGI, should I invent my own syntax instead of using stdin/stdout, to make
sure I don't water down CGI terminology, or should I stick with this? I
don't want to hurt xTalk in any way by introducing duplicate syntax, but
mis-using existing stuff for different uses might be even worse.
Cheers,
- -- M. Uli Kusterer
- ------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
- --- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:25:51 -0700 (MST)
From: Scott Raney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
> >So is CGI, and compatibility with the terminology used for that is far
> >more important than trying to "disguise" it by giving it non-matching
> >"user friendly" names. Allowing the full names sounds like a good
> >idea, though.
>
> Since the app I'm working on is a text-only screen-centric program, not a
> CGI, should I invent my own syntax instead of using stdin/stdout, to make
> sure I don't water down CGI terminology, or should I stick with this? I
> don't want to hurt xTalk in any way by introducing duplicate syntax, but
> mis-using existing stuff for different uses might be even worse.
I'm not sure I understand what you're planning to build, but it sounds
like a character-based application (though I had thought that these
had pretty much gone the way of the dodo ;-) If so, the standard I/O
terms (stdin/stdout/stderr) would probably apply, even if you're
doing terminal I/O related stuff like moving the cursor around. It's
not just CGIs that use these terms, they're standard parts of the C
language.
Regards,
Scott
> Cheers,
> -- M. Uli Kusterer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.weblayout.com/witness
> 'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
>
> --- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
> Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
> Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
>
>
********************************************************
Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com
MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:55:28 +1100
From: "Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
Scott Raney wrote:
>
> > And under Linux, where "console" is also sometimes used for terminal
> > windows. In particular, KDE uses an xterm window called "Konsole".
>
> Hmm. I don't see that anywhere (Red Hat 6.0). Most X11 systems *do*
> have some sort of "console" application, but even this is special as
> stated above: the "console" application is the place where system
> error messages appear and not a normal terminal window. And there is
> generally only one of them and you usually don't use it for normal
> command-line interaction.
Click the the Terminal Emulation button on the panel under KDE in Redhat
Linux 6.1 to get a shell window. The first time it opens it is titled
"Welcome to the console" but after you click on it it changes to
"konsole" (note the "k" for KDE). This app also offers a "linux
console", a "root console" and a "shell", as well as Midnight Commander.
> > Does anyone think that Metacard could benefit from stderr in
> > addition to stdin and stdout, or is that just unneccessary
> > work for Scott?
>
> It's already supported ;-)
Doh! I knew that. I was just testing :-)
- --
Steven D'Aprano
==========================================
M.B. Sales Pty Ltd Ph: +61 3 9460-5244
A.C.N. 005-964-796 Fax: +61 3 9462-1161
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:34:05 -0700 (MST)
From: Scott Raney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Scott Raney wrote:
> >
> > > And under Linux, where "console" is also sometimes used for terminal
> > > windows. In particular, KDE uses an xterm window called "Konsole".
> >
> > Hmm. I don't see that anywhere (Red Hat 6.0). Most X11 systems *do*
> > have some sort of "console" application, but even this is special as
> > stated above: the "console" application is the place where system
> > error messages appear and not a normal terminal window. And there is
> > generally only one of them and you usually don't use it for normal
> > command-line interaction.
>
> Click the the Terminal Emulation button on the panel under KDE in Redhat
> Linux 6.1 to get a shell window. The first time it opens it is titled
> "Welcome to the console" but after you click on it it changes to
> "konsole" (note the "k" for KDE). This app also offers a "linux
> console", a "root console" and a "shell", as well as Midnight Commander.
Hmm, it must be one of the 6.1 betas we have installed on the machine
I checked. On that one, the "Terminal Emulation" button starts up
an application named "kvt".
Regards,
Scott
> --
> Steven D'Aprano
>
> ==========================================
> M.B. Sales Pty Ltd Ph: +61 3 9460-5244
> A.C.N. 005-964-796 Fax: +61 3 9462-1161
>
********************************************************
Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com
MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that...
------------------------------
End of xtalk V1 #348
********************
