1. New version of StoreInc.ex
Hi all,
I have uploaded a new version of StoreInc.ex that addresses the long filename
issue. Give it a try and please let me know of problems. I can't fix it if I
don't hear about it.
As before, though it is a DOS program, it is friendly and lets you choose the
file you wish to copy along with all its includes. It is another example of
BoxGUI programming. As was the earlier version, it is one file and no includes
are needed -- mashed with Mash.ex.
I am still debugging the bejabbers out of Mash.ex and have had to think real
hard (I think I broke something), but it is coming along.
I recall there was a considerable discussion on the forum recently about how one
can be sure that the includes a program uses are the ones the programmer wishes
to be used. I don't think it would be too difficult to alter StoreInc.ex to
create renamed copies of the includes and pop the temporary include names into
the file in consideration. After a successful test, the temporary include lines
would be deleted and the originals uncommented, and the temporary include files
themselves would be deleted. Sounds elaboarate, but fortunately the program
would do most of the effort. Let me know if you think the idea is worth
pursuing, or if you have a better one.
--Quark
2. Re: New version of StoreInc.ex
DB James wrote:
> I have uploaded a new version of StoreInc.ex that addresses the long
> filename issue.
That's probably because you included part of my DOS LFN library.
You carefully removed my name, though. Congragulations!
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
3. Re: New version of StoreInc.ex
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> DB James wrote:
>
> > I have uploaded a new version of StoreInc.ex that addresses the long
> > filename issue.
>
> That's probably because you included part of my DOS LFN library.
> You carefully removed my name, though. Congragulations!
>
> <snip>
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
>
Hi Juergen,
You're quite wrong about "carefully removed my name". I have always wanted
everyone who creates anything to have a credit listing in every context. The
problem, in my opinion arises when personal attention to that issue is needed.
My program Mash.ex routinely clips out comments external to the main file and
external to functions. If your name were listed within any routine, it would be
there for all the world to see. (By the way, thanks very much for your LFN
library).
This has given me an opportunity to remark on something that I have noticed for
years. If a programmer wants credit for a routine which is used by someone else,
then I propose that the programmer's name be included in each routine, so that if
the routine is clipped out of a program or a library, then the name is still
associated with the routine. It would then truly a matter of "carefully removed
my name" if the name were missing. I understand that the ESL routines will
include the creator's name.
--Quark
4. Re: New version of StoreInc.ex
On 7 Aug 2005, at 15:25, DB James wrote:
>
>
> posted by: DB James <larch at adelphia.net>
>
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
> >
> > DB James wrote:
> >
> > > I have uploaded a new version of StoreInc.ex that addresses the long
> > > filename issue.
> >
> > That's probably because you included part of my DOS LFN library.
> > You carefully removed my name, though. Congragulations!
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Juergen
> >
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> You're quite wrong about "carefully removed my name". I have always wanted
> everyone who creates anything to have a credit listing in every context. The
> problem, in my opinion arises when personal attention to that issue is needed.
>
> My program Mash.ex routinely clips out comments external to the main file and
> external to functions. If your name were listed within any routine, it would
> be
> there for all the world to see. (By the way, thanks very much for your LFN
> library).
>
> This has given me an opportunity to remark on something that I have noticed
> for
> years. If a programmer wants credit for a routine which is used by someone
> else, then I propose that the programmer's name be included in each routine,
> so
> that if the routine is clipped out of a program or a library, then the name is
> still associated with the routine. It would then truly a matter of "carefully
> removed my name" if the name were missing. I understand that the ESL routines
> will include the creator's name.
So should RDS make an official pronouncement that all programmers should
sprinkle their scent-mark all thru their files, so mash.e won't delete the
file's
provenance and/or copyright?
Kat
5. Re: New version of StoreInc.ex
Kat wrote:
>
> On 7 Aug 2005, at 15:25, DB James wrote:
>
> >
> > posted by: DB James <larch at adelphia.net>
> >
> > Juergen Luethje wrote:
> > >
> > > DB James wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have uploaded a new version of StoreInc.ex that addresses the long
> > > > filename issue.
> > >
> > > That's probably because you included part of my DOS LFN library.
> > > You carefully removed my name, though. Congragulations!
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Juergen
> > >
> >
> > Hi Juergen,
> >
> > You're quite wrong about "carefully removed my name". I have always wanted
> > everyone who creates anything to have a credit listing in every context.
> > The
> > problem, in my opinion arises when personal attention to that issue is
> > needed.
> > My program Mash.ex routinely clips out comments external to the main file
> > and
> > external to functions. If your name were listed within any routine, it
> > would be
> > there for all the world to see. (By the way, thanks very much for your LFN
> > library).
> >
> > This has given me an opportunity to remark on something that I have noticed
> > for
> > years. If a programmer wants credit for a routine which is used by someone
> > else, then I propose that the programmer's name be included in each routine,
> > so
> > that if the routine is clipped out of a program or a library, then the name
> > is
> > still associated with the routine. It would then truly a matter of
> > "carefully
> > removed my name" if the name were missing. I understand that the ESL
> > routines
> > will include the creator's name.
>
> So should RDS make an official pronouncement that all programmers should
> sprinkle their scent-mark all thru their files, so mash.e won't delete the
> file's
> provenance and/or copyright?
>
> Kat
Hi Kat,
Provacatively put, especially the "scent marks". A kat might think of that.
Doesn't the bind/shroud process clip unused routines out? Are you about to nag
at Robert Craig about scent-mark related issues?
I have already made it clear I think people should get credit for what they do.
Are you saying all the routines in a library must by "law" stay together as a
unit or not be used at all? Have you never used individual routines from a
library? Have you ever made a collection of routines and gathered them in one
place? As to non-public-domain routines, I have never used them that I know of.
If that becomes an issue, I'll deal with it then. I am always open to ideas and
correction, so sarcasm is not needed. Besides, as I said, the ESL will be
placing author identification in the routines. Do you think the ESL people are
casting scent marks?
The idea of Mash is to produce one file that has all the routines needed from
whatever source. It tries to slim down a fat file. It does not have the
sensibilities of a programmer aware of programming provenence. However the file
it works from, AllFiles.txt, does have all that information and is available for
whatever exhaustive reporting that might be called for. Should a report be made
of the provenances?
Finally, I was just beginning to work on a program to help programmers put their
names in their routines if then wish. If I do it, maybe I'll call it Musk.ex.
--Quark
6. Re: New version of StoreInc.ex
On 7 Aug 2005, at 19:09, DB James wrote:
>
>
> posted by: DB James <larch at adelphia.net>
>
> Kat wrote:
> >
> > On 7 Aug 2005, at 15:25, DB James wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > posted by: DB James <larch at adelphia.net>
> > >
> > > Juergen Luethje wrote:
> > > >
> > > > DB James wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have uploaded a new version of StoreInc.ex that addresses the long
> > > > > filename issue.
> > > >
> > > > That's probably because you included part of my DOS LFN library.
> > > > You carefully removed my name, though. Congragulations!
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Juergen
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Juergen,
> > >
> > > You're quite wrong about "carefully removed my name". I have always
> > > wanted
> > > everyone who creates anything to have a credit listing in every context.
> > > The problem, in my opinion arises when personal attention to that issue is
> > > needed. My program Mash.ex routinely clips out comments external to the
> > > main
> > > file and external to functions. If your name were listed within any
> > > routine, it would be there for all the world to see. (By the way, thanks
> > > very much for your LFN library).
> > >
> > > This has given me an opportunity to remark on something that I have
> > > noticed
> > > for years. If a programmer wants credit for a routine which is used by
> > > someone else, then I propose that the programmer's name be included in
> > > each
> > > routine, so that if the routine is clipped out of a program or a library,
> > > then the name is still associated with the routine. It would then truly a
> > > matter of "carefully removed my name" if the name were missing. I
> > > understand that the ESL routines will include the creator's name.
> >
> > So should RDS make an official pronouncement that all programmers should
> > sprinkle their scent-mark all thru their files, so mash.e won't delete the
> > file's provenance and/or copyright?
> >
> > Kat
>
> Hi Kat,
>
> Provacatively put, especially the "scent marks". A kat might think of that.
Funny, that. 
> Doesn't the bind/shroud process clip unused routines out? Are you about to
> nag
> at Robert Craig about scent-mark related issues?
>
> I have already made it clear I think people should get credit for what they
> do.
> Are you saying all the routines in a library must by "law" stay together as a
> unit or not be used at all? Have you never used individual routines from a
> library? Have you ever made a collection of routines and gathered them in one
> place? As to non-public-domain routines, I have never used them that I know
> of.
> If that becomes an issue, I'll deal with it then. I am always open to ideas
> and correction, so sarcasm is not needed. Besides, as I said, the ESL will be
> placing author identification in the routines. Do you think the ESL people
> are
> casting scent marks?
I did put author data in strtok.
> The idea of Mash is to produce one file that has all the routines needed from
> whatever source. It tries to slim down a fat file. It does not have the
> sensibilities of a programmer aware of programming provenence. However the
> file
> it works from, AllFiles.txt, does have all that information and is available
> for
> whatever exhaustive reporting that might be called for. Should a report be
> made
> of the provenances?
Well, maybe *all* the "--" that get stripped from the main should be put into
the mash'ed file's readme, and *all* the "--" from inside routines should be
left
there? I'd even add a "---- from xyz.ew" at the top of a routine stripped from
xyz.ew.
Various methods for intentionally erasing author data (not saying you are
intentional!) have been done that i've seen. It led to printed circuit board
layout people using their initials as vital traces in the circuit, and software
programmers adding code like "if 1=1 then junk = 'the author's nick' end if" to
pad out memory blocks, and of course photographers using stego. Most
famous is MZ's initials as the first two bytes of official 32bit windows code.
> Finally, I was just beginning to work on a program to help programmers put
> their
> names in their routines if then wish. If I do it, maybe I'll call it Musk.ex.
Lol!
Kat
7. Re: New version of StoreInc.ex
Kat wrote:
>
> On 7 Aug 2005, at 19:09, DB James wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Kat,
> >
> > Provacatively put, especially the "scent marks". A kat might think of that.
>
> Funny, that.
>
> > Doesn't the bind/shroud process clip unused routines out? Are you about to
> > nag
> > at Robert Craig about scent-mark related issues?
> >
> > I have already made it clear I think people should get credit for what they
> > do.
> > Are you saying all the routines in a library must by "law" stay together as
> > a
> > unit or not be used at all? Have you never used individual routines from a
> > library? Have you ever made a collection of routines and gathered them in
> > one
> > place? As to non-public-domain routines, I have never used them that I know
> > of.
> > If that becomes an issue, I'll deal with it then. I am always open to
> > ideas
> > and correction, so sarcasm is not needed. Besides, as I said, the ESL will
> > be
> > placing author identification in the routines. Do you think the ESL people
> > are
> > casting scent marks?
>
> I did put author data in strtok.
>
> > The idea of Mash is to produce one file that has all the routines needed
> > from
> > whatever source. It tries to slim down a fat file. It does not have the
> > sensibilities of a programmer aware of programming provenence. However the
> > file
> > it works from, AllFiles.txt, does have all that information and is available
> > for
> > whatever exhaustive reporting that might be called for. Should a report be
> > made
> > of the provenances?
>
> Well, maybe *all* the "--" that get stripped from the main should be put into
> the mash'ed file's readme, and *all* the "--" from inside routines should be
> left
> there? I'd even add a "---- from xyz.ew" at the top of a routine stripped from
>
> xyz.ew.
>
> Various methods for intentionally erasing author data (not saying you are
> intentional!) have been done that i've seen. It led to printed circuit board
> layout people using their initials as vital traces in the circuit, and
> software
> programmers adding code like "if 1=1 then junk = 'the author's nick' end if"
> to
> pad out memory blocks, and of course photographers using stego. Most
> famous is MZ's initials as the first two bytes of official 32bit windows code.
>
> > Finally, I was just beginning to work on a program to help programmers put
> > their
> > names in their routines if then wish. If I do it, maybe I'll call it
> > Musk.ex.
>
> Lol!
>
> Kat
Hello Kat,
This is useful stuff -- it gives me something to go on. Thanks.
I am leaning at the moment to producing a file with as much information
information in it as possible. It would be shipped with the file, as you say, a
readme. It would have which routines or types were duplicated (that happens
routinely in a not-too troublesome way), the routines and types used (retained),
and the unused routines & types (not retained).
I still am not sure what to do about recognizing authors beyond what is already
there in, for example, StoreInc.ex that you may have looked at. The names of the
include files is retained in the mashed program. All the comments in the main
file and in the routines are retained, as I said. Two ideas occur: either I use
Musk.ex to put authors' names in all functions in my copy of their library files
(sounds fraught -- would all authors want this?), or, as you suggest, put all
stripped comments in the readme. That sounds easy enough, but messy to read.
I'd do it if people want it.
Another possibility is to simply allow the user of Mash.ex to choose to not
delete the comment lines from the code. That has the appeal of extreme ease and
might be the best way.
Okay, I try to figure this out so I won't accidently offend people, but I have
to say it all may be moot anyway. Mash.ex was written for several reasons, but
fame and fortune were not among these. I tackled it mainly to see if I could do
it (I recently successfully mashed Jiri Babor's HexLife program and was beaming
when it actually ran). The second reason is sheer laziness: I have messy
libraries of my own and hesitate to inflict them on anyone. I really should go
in and fix everything, but what a task! I feel better about sending a mashed
program in which nothing exists except what is used. The third reason isn't mine
really -- I wondered if others might adapt it to some interesting use. There is
a lot of analysis that could be extracted and I'm kind of pleased with the
ListStore function that tracks declares and calls.
Anyway, to finish what I started to say: this program has been buggy from the
beginning and has never been tested on anything but DOS programs. I have mashed
about eight so far successfully, and cleanup work is always necessary by the
user. I can only honestly say that it *has* worked on the programs I've tested,
and a new program may reveal yet another bug.
Maybe I'll just release it as Version 0.0.01 and let people do whatever they
want with it.
--Quark
8. Re: New version of StoreInc.ex
>Another possibility is to simply allow the user of Mash.ex to choose to not
>delete the comment lines from the code. That has the appeal of extreme
>ease and might be the best way.
>
I am a little confused here. Isn't this utility used to compress all of the
include files of a program into one file and/or directory? Why would the
user need Copyright and/or Author information retained in the outputted
file? I doubt the user is going to redistribute the outputted file. In my
opinion retaining comments in the final file is not necessary.
Chris---
9. Re: New version of StoreInc.ex
DB James wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>>
>> DB James wrote:
>>
>>> I have uploaded a new version of StoreInc.ex that addresses the long
>>> filename issue.
>>
>> That's probably because you included part of my DOS LFN library.
>> You carefully removed my name, though. Congragulations!
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> You're quite wrong about "carefully removed my name". I have always
> wanted everyone who creates anything to have a credit listing in every
> context. The problem, in my opinion arises when personal attention to
> that issue is needed.
Why is this a problem?
In the files "file_ln.e", "Lfn.e", and "LfnRead.txt" it is and was clearly
stated who the author is. Are you able to read and write?
> My program Mash.ex routinely clips out comments
> external to the main file and external to functions.
Aaah, it is Mash.ex's fault?
> If your name were
> listed within any routine, it would be there for all the world to see.
Oooh no, it's probably my fault that you removed my name from my program!
> (By the way, thanks very much for your LFN library).
This is a strange way of showing your gratitude ...
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
10. Re: New version of StoreInc.ex
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> DB James wrote:
>
> > Juergen Luethje wrote:
> >>
> >> DB James wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have uploaded a new version of StoreInc.ex that addresses the long
> >>> filename issue.
> >>
> >> That's probably because you included part of my DOS LFN library.
> >> You carefully removed my name, though. Congragulations!
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >
> > Hi Juergen,
> >
> > You're quite wrong about "carefully removed my name". I have always
> > wanted everyone who creates anything to have a credit listing in every
> > context. The problem, in my opinion arises when personal attention to
> > that issue is needed.
>
> Why is this a problem?
> In the files "file_ln.e", "Lfn.e", and "LfnRead.txt" it is and was clearly
> stated who the author is. Are you able to read and write?
>
> > My program Mash.ex routinely clips out comments
> > external to the main file and external to functions.
>
> Aaah, it is Mash.ex's fault?
>
> > If your name were
> > listed within any routine, it would be there for all the world to see.
>
> Oooh no, it's probably my fault that you removed my name from my program!
>
> > (By the way, thanks very much for your LFN library).
>
> This is a strange way of showing your gratitude ...
>
> <snip>
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
Hello Juergen,
These comments of yours are out-of-date. The problem has been fixed and the fix
has been announced. I also had the offending program withdrawn. The problem
arose when I had my nose too close to the programming issue of compacting an
overly large file, and did not take into account the importance of retaining the
author information. That was a mistake on my part, but not an attempt to harm
anyone. When two people brought it to my attention, I tried to explain how it
came about, and I then repaired the program so that the issue would not come up
again. That is the way it is supposed to work to correct errors. Try to
understand the difference between deliberate disregard and a mistake.
--Quark
