Re: How to process a file

..     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. 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)

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

..    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

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

..    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

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

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 sh
ould
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
 -.

..    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

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

..    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