Cobol - Re: How to process a file

Author

Re: How to process a file

Lueko Willms

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

.. Am 03.11.04
schrieb docdwarf@panix.com
bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in cmas05$q8d$1@panix5.panix.com
ueber Re: How to process a file
[color=darkred]

d> I'm not sure about a 'real' difference... but when it comes to
d> slogging through the code it might be easier to find applicable
d> occurrences of 60520-EX instead of looking for EMP-MSTR-FIL;

Sure, 8 characters instead of 12. The search for Schrpf would be
even faster, since this string has only 6 characters.

But why would anybody want to search for such arbitrary strings?
Why not search for "77 Sunset Strip" or "Pennsylvania 5000"? Why not
simply search for READ?

d> the former will more likely be referred to in PERFORM statements

What likelyhood? I also did not win in the lottery past saturday --
only a chance of 1 to 14 millions for 6 out of 49. You offer 8 out of
36, and with repetitions.

What do I miss to understand your enigmatic words?

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Die Interessen der Nation lassen sich nicht anders formulieren als unter
dem Gesichtspunkt der herrschenden Klasse oder der Klasse, die die
Herrschaft anstrebt." - Leo Trotzki (27. Januar 1932)

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

In article <9KMrmw19flB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
Lueko Willms <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote:
>. Am 03.11.04
> schrieb docdwarf@panix.com
> bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in cmas05$q8d$1@panix5.panix.com
> ueber Re: How to process a file
>
>
>d> I'm not sure about a 'real' difference... but when it comes to
>d> slogging through the code it might be easier to find applicable
>d> occurrences of 60520-EX instead of looking for EMP-MSTR-FIL;
>
> Sure, 8 characters instead of 12.

Mr Willms, the statement you interrupted at the semicolon above contains
the phrase of 'it might be easier to find applicable occurrences', how do
you conclude that the number of characters relates to the 'applicability'
of occurrenct?

>The search for Schrpf would be
>even faster, since this string has only 6 characters.

The question of speed was not addressed, Mr Willms.

>
> But why would anybody want to search for such arbitrary strings?
>Why not search for "77 Sunset Strip" or "Pennsylvania 5000"? Why not
>simply search for READ?

This might be found in the rest of the sentence... which you address
below.

>
>
>d> the former will more likely be referred to in PERFORM statements
>
> What likelyhood? I also did not win in the lottery past saturday --
>only a chance of 1 to 14 millions for 6 out of 49. You offer 8 out of
>36, and with repetitions.
>
> What do I miss to understand your enigmatic words?

Mr Willms, I have no idea whatsoever you are calling 'understanding'; I do
know that I, personally, find it easier to make what I call 'sense' out of
complete sentences, not fragments. If you are interested in discussing
the matter then I would suggest you re-quote the sentences in their
entirety and indicate where you are having difficulties.

DD

Lueko Willms

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

.. On 06.11.04
wrote docdwarf@panix.com
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in cmk0p3$g1a$1@panix5.panix.com
about Re: How to process a file

d>>> I'm not sure about a 'real' difference... but when it comes to
d>>> slogging through the code it might be easier to find applicable
d>>> occurrences of 60520-EX instead of looking for EMP-MSTR-FIL;

LW>> Sure, 8 characters instead of 12.

d> Mr Willms, the statement you interrupted at the semicolon above
d> contains the phrase of 'it might be easier to find applicable
d> occurrences', how do you conclude that the number of characters
d> relates to the 'applicability' of occurrenct?

I can't think of any other reason -- one can enter _any_ string
into the search command of any editor, but I admit that entering "EMP-
MSTR-FIL" is more difficult because it contains two dashes instead of
one, and if I really want to have the upper case being taken into
account, requires to operate the SHIFT key at least four times. That
might be an additional reason that searching for 60520-EX is easier
than this other coarse string.

So maybe you might this time condescend to explain to the mere
mortal as I am what other differences might make the searching for or
the other arbitrary sequences of characters easier than the other?

BTW, EX makes me think that this is about beer -- Ex is the popular
abbreviation here in Germany for "Export", a kind of beer different
from Pils or Alt or Kölsch or others.

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Es gibt eine wahre und eine förmliche Orthographie. -G.C.Lichtenberg

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

In article <9KRHsOIeflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
Lueko Willms <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote:
>. On 06.11.04
> wrote docdwarf@panix.com
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in cmk0p3$g1a$1@panix5.panix.com
> about Re: How to process a file
>
>
>
>d>>> I'm not sure about a 'real' difference... but when it comes to
>d>>> slogging through the code it might be easier to find applicable
>d>>> occurrences of 60520-EX instead of looking for EMP-MSTR-FIL;
>
>LW>> Sure, 8 characters instead of 12.
>
>d> Mr Willms, the statement you interrupted at the semicolon above
>d> contains the phrase of 'it might be easier to find applicable
>d> occurrences', how do you conclude that the number of characters
>d> relates to the 'applicability' of occurrenct?
>
> I can't think of any other reason -- one can enter _any_ string
>into the search command of any editor, but I admit that entering "EMP-
>MSTR-FIL" is more difficult because it contains two dashes instead of
>one, and if I really want to have the upper case being taken into
>account, requires to operate the SHIFT key at least four times. That
>might be an additional reason that searching for 60520-EX is easier
>than this other coarse string.

This has to do with 'ease of entry, Mr Willms, not 'ease of finding
applicable occurrences'.

>
> So maybe you might this time condescend to explain to the mere
>mortal as I am what other differences might make the searching for or
>the other arbitrary sequences of characters easier than the other?

Mr Willms, I got lost in your confusion in your previous posting, that is
why I suggested 'If you are interested in discussing the matter then I
would suggest you re-quote the sentences in their entirety and indicate
where you are having difficulties.'

You've responded to things I have not addressed and you've not re-quoted
anything so it might be reasonable to conclude that you have no interest
in discussing the matter.

DD

Lueko Willms

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

.. On 07.11.04
wrote docdwarf@panix.com
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in cmm9nb$dn4$1@panix5.panix.com
about Re: How to process a file

d> Mr Willms, I got lost in your confusion in your previous posting, that
d> is why I suggested 'If you are interested in discussing the matter
d> then I would suggest you re-quote the sentences in their entirety and
d> indicate where you are having difficulties.'
d>
d> You've responded to things I have not addressed and you've not
d> re-quoted anything so it might be reasonable to conclude that you have
d> no interest in discussing the matter.

The point is, that I just didn't and don't understand what you are
talking about. I read only about finding some arbitrary strings.

"Obvious is in the mind of the beholder", you told this audience
shortly ago. Well, it might be obvious to YOU what you were talking
about, but obviously not to me.

So if you would explain me what the matter is in YOUR view, and in
a way which I can understand, a discussion might begin. .

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Das ganze Zeitungs-All. -G.C.Lichtenberg

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

In article <9KVN4k1uflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
Lueko Willms <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote:
>. On 07.11.04
> wrote docdwarf@panix.com
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in cmm9nb$dn4$1@panix5.panix.com
> about Re: How to process a file
>
>
>d> Mr Willms, I got lost in your confusion in your previous posting, that
>d> is why I suggested 'If you are interested in discussing the matter
>d> then I would suggest you re-quote the sentences in their entirety and
>d> indicate where you are having difficulties.'
>d>
>d> You've responded to things I have not addressed and you've not
>d> re-quoted anything so it might be reasonable to conclude that you have
>d> no interest in discussing the matter.
>
> The point is, that I just didn't and don't understand what you are
>talking about. I read only about finding some arbitrary strings.

Mr Willms, those 'arbitrary string' were posted, I believe, in complete
sentences which I suggested that you re-quote in their entirety and
indicate where you are having difficulties. I've suggested this twice, so
far, and you have been unable or unwilling to do so.

>
> "Obvious is in the mind of the beholder", you told this audience
>shortly ago. Well, it might be obvious to YOU what you were talking
>about, but obviously not to me.

This was one of the reasons, Mr Willms, that I've made my suggestion
repeatedly and concluded from your inability or refusal to attempt to
implement it a cause to conclude that you have no interest in discussing
the matter.

>
> So if you would explain me what the matter is in YOUR view, and in
>a way which I can understand, a discussion might begin. .

I have already done this, Mr Willms, and when I did so you approached it
in a manner - mid-sentence interruption - which I have found, at times, to
be less conducive to an interaction of value than full-sentence
addressing. Third and final time then, Mr Willms: 'If you are interested
in discussing the matter then I would suggest you re-quote the sentences
in their entirety and indicate where you are having difficulties.'

As mentioned before, your inability or refusal to do so and your
continuing insistence in addressing things which I have *not* stated might
make it reasonable to conclude that you have no interest in discussing the
matter; dialogue is best done with at least two people who have an
interest in and courtesy about what the others have to express and it
seems that you have neither.

DD

Howard Brazee

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

On 7-Nov-2004, l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote:

> I can't think of any other reason -- one can enter _any_ string
> into the search command of any editor, but I admit that entering "EMP-
> MSTR-FIL" is more difficult because it contains two dashes instead of
> one, and if I really want to have the upper case being taken into
> account, requires to operate the SHIFT key at least four times. That
> might be an additional reason that searching for 60520-EX is easier
> than this other coarse string.

It's very useful to learn to type effectively. I can type faster than I should
think anyway. Typing longer words isn't anymore of a problem than saying
longer words, once I have developed a comfortable level of competence.

I do note that on my keyboard, I do not have to press SHIFT in order to type -.

Lueko Willms

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

.. On 08.11.04
wrote docdwarf@panix.com
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in cmnh3q$n4s$1@panix5.panix.com
about Re: How to process a file

LW>> So if you would explain me what the matter is in YOUR view,
LW>> and in a way which I can understand, a discussion might begin. .

d> I have already done this, Mr Willms,

So I have to die dumb without understanding what you wanted to
convey.

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Das ganze Zeitungs-All. -G.C.Lichtenberg

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

In article <9KVOOSfeflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de>,
Lueko Willms <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote:
>. On 08.11.04
> wrote docdwarf@panix.com
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in cmnh3q$n4s$1@panix5.panix.com
> about Re: How to process a file
>
>
>LW>> So if you would explain me what the matter is in YOUR view,
>LW>> and in a way which I can understand, a discussion might begin. .
>
>d> I have already done this, Mr Willms,
>
> So I have to die dumb without understanding what you wanted to
>convey.

Thrice asked and thrice refused, Mr Willms; as the sentence you cut off in
your reply here stated:

--begin quoted text:

I have already done this, Mr Willms, and when I did so you approached it
in a manner - mid-sentence interruption - which I have found, at times, to
be less conducive to an interaction of value than full-sentence
addressing. Third and final time then, Mr Willms: 'If you are interested
in discussing the matter then I would suggest you re-quote the sentences
in their entirety and indicate where you are having difficulties.'

--end quoted text

.... so it seems that your prediction of your future is predicated by your
own actions and nobody else's. It takes two to converse, Mr Willms, and
it should be obvious that I am barely able to carry out my own role in
such matters and cannot, without risk of further misunderstandings, carry
out the one you seem unable or unwilling to assume.

DD

Lueko Willms

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

.. On 08.11.04
wrote howard@brazee.net (Howard Brazee)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in cmo7fg$r7p$1@peabody.colorado.edu
about Re: How to process a file

HB> I do note that on my keyboard, I do not have to press SHIFT in order
HB> to type -.

Normally I don't have to do it either, but when I use SHIFT-LOCK
for typing upper case letters, I have to SHIFT to get to the dash.

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Da liegen nun die Kartoffeln und schlafen ihrer Auferstehung entgegen. -G.C.Lichtenberg

Richard

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) wrote

> Normally I don't have to do it either, but when I use SHIFT-LOCK
> for typing upper case letters, I have to SHIFT to get to the dash.

That Shift-Lock seems to be a different functionality than is
available on the keyboards that I commonly use where there is a
Caps-Lock that only upshifts the letters.

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

"Lueko Willms" <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote in message
news:9KVOOSfeflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de...
<snip
>
> So I have to die dumb without understanding what you wanted to
> convey.
>
....or, you could just live with it, Lueko <G>. Failure to understand the Doc
in abstruse mode is something that you are not alone in. I think it has
something to do with those mushrooms Snow White keeps giving him... Life
(and the Doc) go on...

Pete.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

In article <2vb896F2hsk3rU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Lueko Willms" <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote in message
>news:9KVOOSfeflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de...
><snip
>...or, you could just live with it, Lueko <G>. Failure to understand the Doc
>in abstruse mode is something that you are not alone in.

Mr Dashwood, it is one thing to fail to 'understand' me; it might be
another to thrice refuse a simple request to quote, in complete sentences,
what it is that one has difficulty with in order that it might be
discussed.

'Understanding', as has been noted before, can be seen as a complex
process or phenomenon; it can be documented in this forum, however, that
Mr Willms has done nothing more than the latter and because of such his
condition seems to be of his own making.

DD

Richard

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote

> Mr Dashwood, it is one thing to fail to 'understand' me; it might be
> another to thrice refuse a simple request ..

It _might_ be another, or it might be the same.

If he fails to understand that it was a request then it is merely the
same failure to understand, or perhaps a different failure.

> 'Understanding', as has been noted before, can be seen as a complex
> process or phenomenon; it can be documented in this forum, however, that
> Mr Willms has done nothing more than the latter and because of such his
> condition seems to be of his own making.

Ah, so it's _his_ fault that you are obtuse.

In many cases I just give up bothering with your posts, they so seldom
seem worth the effort of unravelling them.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

In article <217e491a.0411091026.5c500942@posting.google.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote
>
>
>It _might_ be another, or it might be the same.

Hence the subjunctive, Mr Plinston... wonderful language, this English.

>
>If he fails to understand that it was a request then it is merely the
>same failure to understand, or perhaps a different failure.

If he fails to understand a request, thrice repeated, of 'If you are
interested in discussing the matter then I would suggest you re-quote the
sentences in their entirety and indicate where you are having
difficulties.' and does not mention such, Mr Plinston, then I have no
explicit way to be aware of or address his failure.

>
>
>Ah, so it's _his_ fault that you are obtuse.

No, Mr Plinston, it is his fault that, when it is repeatedly requested of
him, he does not re-quote sentences in their entirety and indicate where
it is he is having difficulties. I have repeatedly asked that he do so
and he has shown himself to be unable or unwilling to do so. There is
only so long one can put up with the equivalent of

'I don't understand this!'

'Please quote what you do not understand and indicate where you are having
difficulties.'

'I still don't understand this!'

'You have not shown what it is that you do not understand, please quote
what you do not understand and indicate where you have having
difficulties.'

'You aren't making sense!'

'You have not shown what it is that you do not understand, please quote...
etc.'

.... and, for my part, I try to follow the Classic Rule of 'Thrice asked,
thrice refused, no more needs be said.'

>
>In many cases I just give up bothering with your posts, they so seldom
>seem worth the effort of unravelling them.

One does as one sees fit, Mr Plinston, and one gains or misses, in part,
because of this; if there is something that you do not understand then I
would suggest that you re-quote the sentences in their entirety and
indicate where you are having difficulties. In my experience genuine
interest frequently begets genuine efforts... but what do I know?

DD

Lueko Willms

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cmq6be$hit$1@panix5.panix.com...[color=darkred]
> In article <2vb896F2hsk3rU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
I know better than to take sides here, Doc.

But, knowing that deep down you are not ungenerous of spirit, could I offer
the following for your consideration?

1. Although Lueko demonstrates a commendable mastery of English, it is NOT
his first language... (I seem to recall some American friends using an
expression involving severance in a non-tensioned rope...?)

2. Despite my personal mastery of the English language (it being the
foremost of the four which I speak), I also could not quite get from your
post exactly what you were requiring....

I'm sure you'll give my suggestion the consideration it deserves <G>

Pete.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

In article <2ve7hrF2jibqnU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cmq6be$hit$1@panix5.panix.com...
>I know better than to take sides here, Doc.
>
>But, knowing that deep down you are not ungenerous of spirit, could I offer
>the following for your consideration?
>
>1. Although Lueko demonstrates a commendable mastery of English, it is NOT
>his first language... (I seem to recall some American friends using an
>expression involving severance in a non-tensioned rope...?)

I am well aware of this, Mr Dashwood, and it figured into my reasoning
behind the request I made of him.

>
>2. Despite my personal mastery of the English language (it being the
>foremost of the four which I speak), I also could not quite get from your
>post exactly what you were requiring....

Mr Dashwood, what follows is from an earlier posting in this thread, and
is my response to one of Mr Willms statements:

--begin quoted text:

> The point is, that I just didn't and don't understand what you are
>talking about. I read only about finding some arbitrary strings.

Mr Willms, those 'arbitrary string' were posted, I believe, in complete
sentences which I suggested that you re-quote in their entirety and
indicate where you are having difficulties. I've suggested this twice, so
far, and you have been unable or unwilling to do so.

--end quoted text

As I read the above: Mr Willms states that he finds no coherence in what I
have posted, just 'some arbitrary strings'.

I reply that what he responded to were, by his editing, sentence
fragments and that I have suggested - repeatedly - that he quote the
complete sentences in which they occurred and indicate where he is having
difficulties.

In the next sentence I state that I have suggested this twice and that he
has shown himself unable or unwilling to do so.

Now in my experience of the thread Mr Willms has, repeatedly, responded to
sentence-fragments of his own creating; when it is pointed out that the
creating of these fragments might be what is causing his confusion, and
that this confusion might be resolved by quoting the sentences in their
entirety and indicating where his confusion lies... he has done nothing.

I've asked three times and been refused three times; thrice asked, thrice
refused, no more needs be said.

>
>I'm sure you'll give my suggestion the consideration it deserves <G>

My actions appear to bear our your certainty, Mr Dashwood... it can be
seen as a world of remarkable coincidences, aye.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-16, 6:44 pm

Sponsored Links