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
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
