OpenEuphoria

2. Re: upper()

• Posted by Julio C. Galaret Viera <galaret at adinet.com.uy> Aug 06, 2006
• 667 views

The commented out line takes 1-2 seconds to run. What are you using?

JG

4. Re: upper()

• Posted by Jeremy Peterson <ptl99 at hotmail.com> Aug 06, 2006
• 688 views

Incidentally, dumping the sequence upperdata to a file gives a 4.76 MB, 4883
line file full of nothing but:
{{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78},{78}
Altho the number 78 changes for each run.

Running the program uses about 40(approximately) MB of memory, like you said.
However, changing the line:

data = repeat({rand(24)+97},1000000)
upperdata = repeat({rand(24)+97},1000000)
--TO:
data = repeat({"get out of my face"},1000000)
upperdata = repeat({"get out of my face"},1000000)

Makes the program take about 12 seconds, the file outputted is 56641 lines,
55.3MB

In your test program it is simply running upper on atoms, which wouldn't take
very long.

Jeremy

6. Re: upper()

• Posted by Antonio Alessi <a.admin at myway.it> Aug 06, 2006
• 685 views

Kat wrote:
> 
> data = repeat({rand(24)+97},1000000)
> upperdata = repeat({rand(24)+97},1000000)
> 
> puts(1,"repeats done, press a key\n")
> junk = wait_key()
> 
>   --for loop = 1 to length(data) do upperdata[loop] = upper(data[loop]) end
> for
>   for loop = 1 to length(data) do upperdata[loop] = data[loop] end for
> 
> 
> The commented out line uses 48megabytes of memory, and takes 170 
> seconds to run.
> 
> The next line is the same, but without upper(), and executes instantly.
> 
> This line takes all night to run:
> upperdata = upper(data)
> 
> Why, and how can i avoid the penalty of upper(), and still get the upperdata?
> 
> Yes, i need both data and upperdata.
.. ..
> Kat
> 
> 


Hi Kat,

the time you got seems to be out of the context.
Here are two routines to compare with your expression:
the RDS official 2.5; the beautiful one of Derek, 
(arranged here) that I use.

on my system it deals with 1 to 1,5 seconds.

	RDS's   elapsed Time  1.24
	used RAM                 45056
	
	Derek's elapsed Time  0.58
	used RAM                     0
-------	
	Derek's elapsed Time  2.12
	used RAM                663552
	
	                   ___________
	<space>

Note that the declared free memory can be due to other factors.

Antonio

global atom get_Mem, free_mem, min_free_mem, bg, en
include win32lib.ew
without warning
--- =========
constant
  lc = 
{#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9,#A,#B,#C,#D,#E,#F,#10,#11,#12,#13,#14,#15,#16,#17,#18
,#19,#1A,#1B,#1C,#1D,#1E,#1F,#20,#21,#22,#23,#24,#25,#26,#27,#28,#29,#2A,#2B,#2C
,#2D,#2E,#2F,#30,#31,#32,#33,#34,#35,#36,#37,#38,#39,#3A,#3B,#3C,#3D,#3E,#3F,#40
,#61,#62,#63,#64,#65,#66,#67,#68,#69,#6A,#6B,#6C,#6D,#6E,#6F,#70,#71,#72,#73,#74
,#75,#76,#77,#78,#79,#7A,#5B,#5C,#5D,#5E,#5F,#60,#61,#62,#63,#64,#65,#66,#67,#68
,#69,#6A,#6B,#6C,#6D,#6E,#6F,#70,#71,#72,#73,#74,#75,#76,#77,#78,#79,#7A,#7B,#7C
,#7D,#7E,#7F,#80,#81,#82,#83,#84,#85,#86,#87,#88,#89,#9A,#8B,#9C,#8D,#9E,#8F,#90
,#91,#92,#93,#94,#95,#96,#97,#98,#99,#9A,#9B,#9C,#9D,#9E,#FF,#A0,#A1,#A2,#A3,#A4
,#A5,#A6,#A7,#A8,#A9,#AA,#AB,#AC,#AD,#AE,#AF,#B0,#B1,#B2,#B3,#B4,#B5,#B6,#B7,#B8
,#B9,#BA,#BB,#BC,#BD,#BE,#BF,#E0,#E1,#E2,#E3,#E4,#E5,#E6,#E7,#E8,#E9,#EA,#EB,#EC
,#ED,#EE,#EF,#F0,#F1,#F2,#F3,#F4,#F5,#F6,#D7,#F8,#F9,#FA,#FB,#FC,#FD,#FE,#DF,#E0
,#E1,#E2,#E3,#E4,#E5,#E6,#E7,#E8,#E9,#EA,#EB,#EC,#ED,#EE,#EF,#F0,#F1,#F2,#F3,#F4
,#F5,#F6,#F7,#F8,#F9,#FA,#FB,#FC,#FD,#FE,#FF}
 ,uc = 
{#1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9,#A,#B,#C,#D,#E,#F,#10,#11,#12,#13,#14,#15,#16,#17,#18
,#19,#1A,#1B,#1C,#1D,#1E,#1F,#20,#21,#22,#23,#24,#25,#26,#27,#28,#29,#2A,#2B,#2C
,#2D,#2E,#2F,#30,#31,#32,#33,#34,#35,#36,#37,#38,#39,#3A,#3B,#3C,#3D,#3E,#3F,#40
,#41,#42,#43,#44,#45,#46,#47,#48,#49,#4A,#4B,#4C,#4D,#4E,#4F,#50,#51,#52,#53,#54
,#55,#56,#57,#58,#59,#5A,#5B,#5C,#5D,#5E,#5F,#60,#41,#42,#43,#44,#45,#46,#47,#48
,#49,#4A,#4B,#4C,#4D,#4E,#4F,#50,#51,#52,#53,#54,#55,#56,#57,#58,#59,#5A,#7B,#7C
,#7D,#7E,#7F,#80,#81,#82,#83,#84,#85,#86,#87,#88,#89,#8A,#8B,#8C,#8D,#8E,#8F,#90
,#91,#92,#93,#94,#95,#96,#97,#98,#99,#8A,#9B,#8C,#9D,#8E,#9F,#A0,#A1,#A2,#A3,#A4
,#A5,#A6,#A7,#A8,#A9,#AA,#AB,#AC,#AD,#AE,#AF,#B0,#B1,#B2,#B3,#B4,#B5,#B6,#B7,#B8
,#B9,#BA,#BB,#BC,#BD,#BE,#BF,#C0,#C1,#C2,#C3,#C4,#C5,#C6,#C7,#C8,#C9,#CA,#CB,#CC
,#CD,#CE,#CF,#D0,#D1,#D2,#D3,#D4,#D5,#D6,#D7,#D8,#D9,#DA,#DB,#DC,#DD,#DE,#DF,#C0
,#C1,#C2,#C3,#C4,#C5,#C6,#C7,#C8,#C9,#CA,#CB,#CC,#CD,#CE,#CF,#D0,#D1,#D2,#D3,#D4
,#D5,#D6,#F7,#D8,#D9,#DA,#DB,#DC,#DD,#DE,#9F}

constant TO_LOWER = 'a' - 'A' 

global function EUupper(object x)
-- convert atom or sequence to upper case
    return x - (x >= 'a' and x <= 'z') * TO_LOWER
end function

--- ========
global function upper(object x)

    if integer(x) then
            x = uc[x +1]
    elsif sequence(x) then
        for i = 1 to length(x) do
            if x[i] then
            	x[i] = uc[x[i] +1]
            end if
        end for        
    end if
    return x
end function
--- ========
global function Obj_upper(object x)
    if integer(x) then
        if x >= 0 and x < length(uc) then
            x = uc[x+1]
        end if
    elsif sequence(x) then
        for i = 1 to length(x) do
            if integer(x[i]) then
                if x[i] >= 0 and x[i] < length(uc) then
                    x[i] = uc[x[i]+1]
                end if
            elsif sequence(x) then
                x[i] = Obj_upper(x[i])
            end if
        end for        
    end if
    return x
end function
--- ========

constant
    kernel32 = open_dll("kernel32.dll")      -- by H. W. Overman
,xGlobalMemoryStatus =
   define_c_proc(kernel32,"GlobalMemoryStatus",{C_POINTER})
   ,MEMORYSTATUS = allocate(32)     
    mem_set(MEMORYSTATUS, 0, 32)   

function get_freeMemory( )

	c_proc( xGlobalMemoryStatus, {MEMORYSTATUS})
	return peek4u( MEMORYSTATUS +12)

end function
get_Mem = routine_id( "get_freeMemory")
--- =========

atom tempo
sequence data, upperdata

constant iterations = 1


data = repeat({rand(24)+97},1000000)
upperdata = repeat({rand(24)+97},1000000)

	bg = get_freeMemory( )    
	    tempo=time()
	    for j = 1 to iterations do
	        for loop = 1 to length(data) do 
	    		upperdata[loop] = EUupper(data[loop]) 
	    	end for
	    end for
	
	puts(1, sprintf( "RDS's   elapsed Time  %2.2f\n", time()-tempo))
	puts(1, sprintf( "used RAM              %8d\n\n", bg -get_freeMemory( )))

	bg = get_freeMemory( )    
	
	    tempo=time()
	    for j = 1 to iterations do
	        for loop = 1 to length(data) do 
	    		upperdata[loop] = upper(data[loop]) 
	    	end for
	    end for
	
	puts(1, sprintf( "Derek's elapsed Time  %2.2f\n", time()-tempo))
	puts(1, sprintf( "used RAM              %8d\n\n", bg -get_freeMemory( )))
	
	bg = get_freeMemory( )    
	    tempo=time()
--	    for j = 1 to iterations do
	    	upperdata = Obj_upper(data) 
--	    end for
	
	puts(1, sprintf( "Derek's elapsed Time  %2.2f\n", time()-tempo))
	puts(1, sprintf( "used RAM              %8d\n\n", bg -get_freeMemory( )))


	puts(1,          "                   ___________\n")
	

puts(1, "<space>") puts(1, wait_key())

8. Re: upper()

• Posted by "Kat" <Kat12 at coosahs.net> Aug 06, 2006
• 668 views

For munging the 24megabyte data, i started the line:

upperurllist = upper(urllist)

And 45 minutes later, you can see the progress at
http://www.designerthinking.com/temp/UPPER1.GIF

It quickly ramped up to 320megabyes memory use at 5:30am, 
500megabytes at 5:50am, and at 6:20am it's at 200megabytes memory 
use,, still on that upper() line. (At 6:25am, it dropped to 100megs again, and 
is on the way up, fast, two mintes later it's at 551 megabytes.) This is 
unacceptable. It's still on the same line, with one call to upper().

I started 
http://www.designerthinking.com/temp/testupper.ew
20 minutes ago too, and have yet to get the first print of timing. It's at 
100megabytes memory use now.

Kat

10. Re: upper()

• Posted by Antonio Alessi <a.admin at myway.it> Aug 06, 2006
• 677 views

Kat wrote:
> 
> Incidently, OOEU runs the commented out line in 4 seconds, but takes all 
> night to run parse() or gets(). Using define_c_proc(open_dll("msvcrt.dll"),
> .. ..> 
> Kat
> 
> 

Sure it is not OOEU to give those problems?
I have met also, starting my application with it, waiting 45 seconds..

Antonio

12. Re: upper()

• Posted by "Kat" <Kat12 at coosahs.net> Aug 06, 2006
• 669 views

On 6 Aug 2006, at 4:41, Derek Parnell wrote concerning:
Re: upper()

> ------------------------------------------------
> global function toUpperObj(object s)
> ------------------------------------------------
>     if atom(s) then
>         return uc[s+1]
>     else
>         for i = 1 to length(s) do
>             if atom(s[i]) then
>                 s[i] = uc[s[i]+1]
>             else
>                 s[i] = toUpperObj(s[i])
>             end if
>         end for
>     end if
> end function

attempt to exit a function without returning a value

Kat,
still working on it......

14. Re: upper()

• Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Aug 06, 2006
• 680 views

Kat wrote:
> 
> On 6 Aug 2006, at 4:41, Derek Parnell wrote concerning:
> Re: upper()
> 
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > global function toUpperObj(object s)
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >     if atom(s) then
> >         return uc[s+1]
> >     else
> >         for i = 1 to length(s) do
> >             if atom(s[i]) then
> >                 s[i] = uc[s[i]+1]
> >             else
> >                 s[i] = toUpperObj(s[i])
> >             end if
> >         end for
> >     end if
> > end function
> 
> attempt to exit a function without returning a value
> 
> Kat,
> still working on it......

Well I just knocked it up in a couple of minutes.. gee!!! Give some slack here
okay! I suppose you can see the stupid error I made. And I suppose you fixed it
already. I only tested the toLower function so that's why I missed it.  No one is
forcing you to use this faster function. I just thought I'd try to help; sorry
for interrupting you.


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Skype name: derek.j.parnell

16. Re: upper()

• Posted by "Kat" <Kat12 at coosahs.net> Aug 06, 2006
• 670 views

On 6 Aug 2006, at 8:28, Derek Parnell wrote concerning:
Re: upper()

> 
> 
> posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
> 
> Kat wrote:
> > 
> > On 6 Aug 2006, at 4:41, Derek Parnell wrote concerning:
> > Re: upper()
> > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > global function toUpperObj(object s)
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >     if atom(s) then
> > >         return uc[s+1]
> > >     else
> > >         for i = 1 to length(s) do
> > >             if atom(s[i]) then
> > >                 s[i] = uc[s[i]+1]
> > >             else
> > >                 s[i] = toUpperObj(s[i])
> > >             end if
> > >         end for
> > >     end if
> > > end function
> > 
> > attempt to exit a function without returning a value
> > 
> > Kat,
> > still working on it......
> 
> Well I just knocked it up in a couple of minutes.. gee!!! Give some slack here
> okay! I suppose you can see the stupid error I made. And I suppose you fixed
> it
> already. I only tested the toLower function so that's why I missed it.  No one
> is forcing you to use this faster function. I just thought I'd try to help;
> sorry for interrupting you.

Oh,, well, actually, i thought there was a problem with listfilter deleteing
lines
or something. I actually went to the euforum webpage and checked there, 
and waited to see if anyone replied to your email and included your email 
with the same errors. Honestly, that *you* made an error was last on my 
mind. And i thought this was code you already had!

Kat

18. Re: upper()

• Posted by Hayden McKay <hmck1 at dodo.com.au> Aug 07, 2006
• 658 views

Kat wrote:
> 
> data = repeat({rand(24)+97},1000000)
> upperdata = repeat({rand(24)+97},1000000)
> 
> puts(1,"repeats done, press a key\n")
> junk = wait_key()
> 
>   --for loop = 1 to length(data) do upperdata[loop] = upper(data[loop]) end
> for
>   for loop = 1 to length(data) do upperdata[loop] = data[loop] end for
> 
> 
> The commented out line uses 48megabytes of memory, and takes 170 
> seconds to run.
> 
> The next line is the same, but without upper(), and executes instantly.
> 
> This line takes all night to run:
> upperdata = upper(data)
> 

-- this takes about 3-5 secs on my machine...
-- I suggest you execute with ex.exw and not ex.ex from ed.ex Esc->e.

include wildcard.e
sequence data, upperdata

    data = repeat({rand(24)+97},1000000)
    upperdata = repeat(-1, 1000000)

    upperdata = upper(data)

-- my P4 3.0x2-64 with 2Gb Duel Channel DDR 533 (a little bit forgiving).

but if you really need to use loops, 'routine_id()' speeds up things noticeably
in huge loop irrations.

constant id_upper  = routine_id("upper")

    for loop = 1 to length(data) do
        upperdata[loop] = call_func(id_upper, {data[loop]})
    end for

You also might want to try...

constant id_upper  = routine_id("upper")
integer junk

    for loop = 1 to length(data) do
        junk = data[loop]
        upperdata[loop] = call_func(id_upper, {junk})
    end for

> Why, and how can i avoid the penalty of upper(), and still get the upperdata?
> 
> Yes, i need both data and upperdata.
> 
> Incidently, OOEU runs the commented out line in 4 seconds, but takes all 
> night to run parse() or gets(). Using define_c_proc(open_dll("msvcrt.dll"),
> 
> "_strupr", {C_POINTER}) doesn't help in OOEU, but does in exw.exe. It's 
> very frustrating.
> 
> The actual data (not the test set above) is a million ~30-character lines in
> a 
> 24megabyte file. I cannot run the app every 30 minutes anymore. Either 
> parse(), gets(), or upper() take too long.
> 
> Kat
> 
> 



how many programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
none it's a hardware problem!

20. Re: upper()

• Posted by Julio C. Galaret Viera <galaret at adinet.com.uy> Aug 08, 2006
• 674 views

Kat wrote:
> 
> On 6 Aug 2006, at 1:35, Julio C. Galaret Viera wrote concerning:
> Re: upper()
> 
> Using?

I meant box, cpu, etc.

The problem with upper() seems to be related, at least in part to the number of
sequences inside data/upperdata.

An alternative may be you do not remove '\n' or '\r' when reading from file so
you have only one long sequence of ~32.000.000 chars.

If I use upper() over this sequence, I quickly runs out of memory since I have
only 256 MB RAM. Even with enough memory it is too slow.

But if loop atom by atom I convert data to upper case in ~180 secs. That seems
to be the fastest way with upper().
Then you may write this sequence as a text file again.


JG

22. Re: upper()

• Posted by Julio C. Galaret Viera <galaret at adinet.com.uy> Aug 08, 2006
• 673 views

Kat wrote:
> 
> > 
> > posted by: Julio C. Galaret Viera <galaret at adinet.com.uy>
> > 
> > Kat wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 6 Aug 2006, at 1:35, Julio C. Galaret Viera wrote concerning: Re:
> > > upper()
> > > 
> > > Using?
> > 
> > I meant box, cpu, etc.
> 
> AMD Sempron 3000+ winxp sp2 1gigram
> 
> > The problem with upper() seems to be related, at least in part to the
> > number of sequences inside data/upperdata.
> > 
> > An alternative may be you do not remove '\n' or '\r' when reading from
> > file so you have only one long sequence of ~32.000.000 chars.
> 
> I parse(data,{10,13}) .
> 
> Kat

Perhaps due to the fact that English is not my native language, I am being
misunderstood. Sorry for my English.
What I mean is I advise you not to parse data initially so that you will manage
only one long sentence on which you can run upper() but instead of running it on
the sequence as a whole, run it recursively on each element of the sequence.
After that, if you need it, you may parse the sequence upperdata obtained,
getting rid of #10 and #13.

JG

> 
> > If I use upper() over this sequence, I quickly runs out of memory
> > since I have only 256 MB RAM. Even with enough memory it is too slow.
> > 
> > But if loop atom by atom I convert data to upper case in ~180 secs.
> > That seems to be the fastest way with upper(). Then you may write this
> > sequence as a text file again.
> > 
> > 
> > JG
> > 
> >

24. Re: upper()

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Aug 11, 2006
• 686 views

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:34:09 -0700, Hayden McKay
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:

>}}}
<eucode>
>global function upper(sequence st)
>    asciiLUT = euinc:upper(asciiLUT)
>    ...
>end function
>
>global function lower(sequence st)
>    asciiLUT = euinc:lower(asciiLUT)
>    ...
>end function
></eucode>
{{{

Ouch! You clearly don't need to call euinc:lower/upper every single
time these replacements are called.

One other thing I feel a need to say here is that it seems apparent
that this approach will match the usual upper/lower 100%. It will not.
As a (daft) example, euinc:lower(75.123) will give 107.123 whereas the
replacement will typecheck on both 75.123 and {75.123}; and, if
"integer ch" is replaced with "atom ch", the latter will give {107}. 

No biggie, just saying don't claim/think 100% compatible when not.
I am of course slighting wildcard.e on that last point, not your code.

Barring those niggles, I think that is a clever approach.

Regards,
Pete

26. Re: upper()

• Posted by Jeremy Peterson <ptl99 at hotmail.com> Aug 13, 2006
• 690 views

Kat wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:34:09 -0700, Hayden McKay
> > <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >}}}
<eucode>
> > >global function upper(sequence st)
> > >    asciiLUT = euinc:upper(asciiLUT)
> > >    ...
> > >end function
> > >
> > >global function lower(sequence st)
> > >    asciiLUT = euinc:lower(asciiLUT)
> > >    ...
> > >end function
> > ></eucode>
{{{

> > Ouch! You clearly don't need to call euinc:lower/upper every single
> > time these replacements are called.
> > 
> > One other thing I feel a need to say here is that it seems apparent
> > that this approach will match the usual upper/lower 100%. It will not.
> > As a (daft) example, euinc:lower(75.123) will give 107.123 whereas the
> > replacement will typecheck on both 75.123 and {75.123}; and, if
> > "integer ch" is replaced with "atom ch", the latter will give {107}. 
> > 
> > No biggie, just saying don't claim/think 100% compatible when not. I
> > am of course slighting wildcard.e on that last point, not your code.
> > 
> > Barring those niggles, I think that is a clever approach.
> 
> I have been using the code Derek supplied, and run times have 
> been ~6 sec to ~140 seconds, depending on how busy the 
> machine is. 
> 
> This has all become academic. The neighbor's new dogs have been 
> challenging me for right to access my property and mailbox, and 
> the neighbor is now threatening to sue me for harrassment even tho 
> i have constantly tried to avoid him. I'll be living in my car, in other 
> states, after court on August 15th 2006. This is the only way i 
> know to get further away from him and his dogs.
> 
> Kat
> 
More trouble with the neighbor and his dogs?  After reading your previous posts
about this problem I have a suggestion:

First, purchase a silenced pistol - a Beretta M92 would do nicely, but a HK23
.45 calibur would be better.
You said in one of the other posts that you already owned a gun or two, so you
could just take it to a gunsmith and have a silencer installed.
But if there aren't that many people around you might not even need a silencer.

Also buy some kind of electrical stun gun that works on dogs as well as humans.
Next, wait till the neighbour leaves his house, go over and zap the dog(s)
unconcious, drag them over to your house and shoot it(them), then bury them
somewhere in your woods.
Neighbour comes home, dog(s) is(are) nowhere to be found and he doesn't have a
clue what happened to them.

The other way is to give it some poisoned meat when he attacks you, then repeat
burying him in the woods.
If he continues getting more dogs I suggest using C4 on his house:), or simply
hiring a detective to dig up some dirt on him and then blackmail him to move
away.

I might also suggest moving to another state, Alabama doesn't sound like a very
good one.

Jeremy

28. Re: upper()

• Posted by Jeremy Peterson <ptl99 at hotmail.com> Aug 13, 2006
• 680 views
• Last edited Aug 14, 2006

> may have been a joke"
Well um yes...

>I think that advocating illegal behavior
>on a public mailing list is typically bad taste.
Well I don't.  It should be obvious that this is a intended to be a joke, and
most of you guys could do with a little humour now and then.

But jokes on this forum never seem to be appreciated, except by me and 1 or 2
others...

Take a look at this example from
http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?thread=1&fromMonth=6&fromYear=A&toMonth=8&toYear=A&keywords=%223.0+feature+request:+foreach%22

As you can see, nobody laughed at it.

>Date: 2005 Jul 13 7:41
>From: Dave Probert <zingo at purpletiger.com>
>Subject: Re: 3.0 feature request: foreach

Vincent wrote:
>> 
>> D. Newhall wrote:
> > >
> > >I think that the next release should have something new and useful to the
> > >languag
e.
--<snip>
> > > set to the next next element in "line". A consideration would be to
> > > optimize
expressions
> > >of the type "foreach obj in reverse(seq)do"
> > >
> >
> >Hi there... I don't think there needs to be any more loop methods. "while"
> >and
"for"
--<snip>
> >
> >Using UPX for EX.EXE and hardware floating point compiler flags, background
> >transpa
rent
> >icons, and a nice multitasking library & documentation dirived from Language
> >War's
> >Sched.e would make the nice addition for Euphoria 3.0.
> 
> >I'm looking forward to 3.0, I can't wait to try out the "Language War"
> >technique,
seeing
> >how much smaller EX.EXE is, and observe those new Windows icons on my
> >colorful
desktop
> >backgrounds.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Vincent

>Sorry, gotta go with Vincent on this one - we really do need to have more
>>colourful
>icons for our desktop.

>Our programs will never be as good as ones written in the more complicated
>>languages
>without the colourful icons.  In fact I think Euphoria should drop many of >the
>
>current language features like - print, sprint, while, if, message_box, etc >in
>
>favour of having some extra functionality to provide better icon support.  

>Who needs other stuff anyway?

>:)
>Dave

>PS.  I actually vote FOR foreach - use it all the time in PHP and it rally
>>does save
>a huge amount of confusion - though mainly with associative arrays!

Hahahahahahahahahah! :)  Great joke Dave!

Jeremy

30. Re: upper()

• Posted by Jeremy Peterson <ptl99 at hotmail.com> Aug 14, 2006
• 674 views

And like I said, she should move away from that town and maybe even that state. 
That was a serious suggestion.

And I can bet someone is going to say
"Re: upper()" shove off, Jeremy"

Jeremy

32. Re: upper()

• Posted by don cole <doncole at pacbell.net> Aug 15, 2006
• 663 views

Jeremy Peterson wrote:
> 
> And like I said, she should move away from that town and maybe even that
> state.
>  That was a serious suggestion.
> 
> And I can bet someone is going to say
> "Re: upper()" shove off, Jeremy"
> 
> Jeremy

   Maybe Alabama needs Moore Governor.

Don Cole