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 orange.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1)
id 11zHO6-0004K7-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:46:58 +0000
Received: from [208.156.39.203] (helo=BFLITEMAIL3)
by mauve.csi.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.03 #1)
id 11zHO5-0007VB-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:46:57 +0000
Received: from deck.metacard.com ([209.180.240.46])
by BFLITEMAIL3.bigfoot.com (LiteMail v1.3 (1)) with SMTP id
18Dec1999_BFLITEMAIL3_19461_141577858;
Sat, 18 Dec 1999 05:47:31 -0500 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by deck.metacard.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA30819
for xtalk-digest-outgoing; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:13:05 -0700
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:13:05 -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 #351
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
xtalk Saturday, December 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 351
In this issue:
xTalk: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
xTalk: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
xTalk: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:10:03 +0000
From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xTalk: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
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 orange.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1)
id 11yYS4-0002a5-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:48:04 +0000
Received: from [208.156.39.203] (helo=BFLITEMAIL4)
by mauve.csi.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.03 #1)
id 11yYS2-0007g2-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:48:02 +0000
Received: from deck.metacard.com ([209.180.240.46])
by BFLITEMAIL4.bigfoot.com (LiteMail v1.3 (4)) with SMTP id
16Dec1999_BFLITEMAIL4_17560_136741679;
Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:48:35 -0500 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by deck.metacard.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA29338
for xtalk-digest-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:13:04 -0700
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:13:04 -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 #349
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
xtalk Thursday, December 16 1999 Volume 01 : Number 349
In this issue:
xTalk: Re: xtalk V1 #348
Re: Re: Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:41:13 +0000
From: Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xTalk: Re: xtalk V1 #348
Guys,
Console is an abtraction used for the standard logical output device.
You are referring to a DOS or Unix shell, which for those platforms is
the standard output device. On Mac, it's usually faked by the
application you are running.
Steve Long
- - -----------------------------------------------
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/slong
- ------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:05:09 +0100
From: "M. Uli Kusterer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
>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 ;-)
Scott,
since that program only works with text in a window, it'll be just fine
for what I need it for. I admit, it's an esoteric little kind of
application.
>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.
That's what's bothering me. We're talking about xTalk here, and I think C
shouldn't be something to borrow terminology from. What do users actually
call these terminal/console windows in real life?
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: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:45:31 +0100
From: Ruediger zu Dohna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
"M. Uli Kusterer" wrote:
> We're talking about xTalk here, and I think C
> shouldn't be something to borrow terminology from. What do users actually
> call these terminal/console windows in real life?
Users of these terminal/console windows are in real life programmers,
most are C programmers. The whole concept is tied into the C language
and "normal" people do not use command lines very often, although they
could accomplish enormous tasks with commands like sed or even just
grep! But end users are spoiled by those terrible GUIs ;-) and can only
think in menus and are simply unable to grasp the concepts that go on
behind that stuff on the surface. ;-)
Regards
R�diger
- - --------------------------------------------------------------------
GINIT - Gesellschaft fuer integrierte Informationssysteme mbH
- - --------------------------------------------------------------------
GINIT GmbH
Ruediger zu Dohna email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technologiepark phone: +49-721-96681-63
Emmy-Noether-Str. 9 fax: +49-721-96681-11
D-76131 Karlsruhe www: http://www.ginit.de
- - --------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP-Fingerprint: F1 BF 9D 95 57 26 48 42 FE F8 E8 02 41 1A EE 3E
- - --------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------------
End of xtalk V1 #349
********************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:54:32 +0000
From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xTalk: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
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
********************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:54:53 +0000
From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xTalk: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
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 11yuws-00078B-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:49:22 +0000
Received: from [208.156.39.203] (helo=BFLITEMAIL3)
by mauve.csi.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.03 #1)
id 11yuwr-0004TF-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:49:21 +0000
Received: from deck.metacard.com ([209.180.240.46])
by BFLITEMAIL3.bigfoot.com (LiteMail v1.3 (1)) with SMTP id
17Dec1999_BFLITEMAIL3_19422_80480117;
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 05:49:55 -0500 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by deck.metacard.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA30155
for xtalk-digest-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 03:13:05 -0700
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 03:13:05 -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 #350
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
xtalk Friday, December 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 350
In this issue:
Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:51:12 +0100
From: "M. Uli Kusterer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
>Users of these terminal/console windows are in real life programmers,
>most are C programmers. The whole concept is tied into the C language
>and "normal" people do not use command lines very often, although they
>could accomplish enormous tasks with commands like sed or even just
>grep! But end users are spoiled by those terrible GUIs ;-) and can only
>think in menus and are simply unable to grasp the concepts that go on
>behind that stuff on the surface. ;-)
R�diger,
sure, but these shell windows are still rather common under Unix, some
people told me (at least they are using them rather frequently), and they
used to be used under DOS. What were they called there? Shell? Could we
maybe make that a synonym to stdin and stdout?
Never mind. Since we're really talking about a Dodo thing here, I guess
it's no use to add another synonym for a rarely-used feature, especially
since for CGIs standardInput and standardOutput actually make sense.
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: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:14:00 -0500
From: "Raymond E. Griffith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
- - ----------
>From: "M. Uli Kusterer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
>Date: Thu, Dec 16, 1999, 8:51 AM
>
>>Users of these terminal/console windows are in real life programmers,
>>most are C programmers. The whole concept is tied into the C language
>>and "normal" people do not use command lines very often, although they
>>could accomplish enormous tasks with commands like sed or even just
>>grep! But end users are spoiled by those terrible GUIs ;-) and can only
>>think in menus and are simply unable to grasp the concepts that go on
>>behind that stuff on the surface. ;-)
>
> R�diger,
>
> sure, but these shell windows are still rather common under Unix, some
> people told me (at least they are using them rather frequently), and they
> used to be used under DOS. What were they called there? Shell? Could we
> maybe make that a synonym to stdin and stdout?
>
> Never mind. Since we're really talking about a Dodo thing here, I guess
> it's no use to add another synonym for a rarely-used feature, especially
> since for CGIs standardInput and standardOutput actually make sense.
>
> Cheers,
> -- M. Uli Kusterer
>
R�diger,
Ok, so I am a GUI spoiled .... (now why am I thinking about the stuff
that's been in the refrigerator too long?)
He, he. But I do like the graphical interface. I used to be passing fair
in Pascal. But most people, me included, like our GUIs. And OOP is so much
easier when you can see the objects!
That's why I require graphing calculators in my math classes. If students
can see the functions, then they can work with them a *lot* more easily.
So Scott and company, keep up the good work! MetaCard is great!
Raymond
- ------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:28:02 +1100
From: "Steven D'Aprano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>
> Since we're really talking about a Dodo thing here
Since being introduced to Linux, I've come to appreciate the power of
the command line. Where ever practical, I try to allow *both* a GUI and
CLI for an application. (If you're clever, your GUI can simply call the
CLI in most cases.)
> I guess it's no use to add another synonym for a rarely-used
> feature, especially since for CGIs standardInput and standardOutput
> actually make sense.
Assuming there's no performance penalties involved, I vote for keeping
stdin/stout/stderr as well as synonyms standardInput etc.
- - --
Steven D'Aprano
==========================================
M.B. Sales Pty Ltd Ph: +61 3 9460-5244
A.C.N. 005-964-796 Fax: +61 3 9462-1161
- ------------------------------
End of xtalk V1 #350
********************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:13:54 +0100
From: "M. Uli Kusterer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re: xTalk: Getting input from console
>Since being introduced to Linux, I've come to appreciate the power of
>the command line. Where ever practical, I try to allow *both* a GUI and
>CLI for an application. (If you're clever, your GUI can simply call the
>CLI in most cases.)
Hi,
it's true. My program has a reason for having its CLI. But there are
equivalent technologies, like AppleScript on the Mac, which allows
remote-controlling any application using one common language. I think over
short or long things like this will supercede the CLI, though you still
have a text window into which you enter commands.
>Assuming there's no performance penalties involved, I vote for keeping
>stdin/stout/stderr as well as synonyms standardInput etc.
I think Scott also said he liked it, so I guess this is now part of the
standard :-)
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
------------------------------
End of xtalk V1 #351
********************
