Re: I'd like to clear my name
> I've figured it out though... Ralf wrote EDOM, he attacked me. Gabriel is
> writing his own, he attacked me. My guess is that they're working together
> (or there is some hidden agenda) and will soon have a pretty good file IO
> library out. I'll be the better man and suggest the following. Good luck.
> If it's better than random.e, then good. We've made progress. I don't care
> who gets the credit.
Lol. Actually, I thought Gabriel'sresponse reponse to your message was kind of
'inappropriate'.
And I dropped my own EDOM, because it kind of did the same as Gabriel's routines
did, but his routines are just better at it.
> Again, sorry for the spam. And thanks for your time. Ralf and Gabriel, if
> you reply to this, you're just showing how immature you are. I was wrong
> Ralf, let's get over it. Hey guys, how about a truce. Let's put this behind
> us. Otherwise, we'll piss everyone off on the list, make ourselves look like
> 12 year olds, and not be productive in the programming department.
A little unfair to state replying to his is immature, but I assume you meant a
flame like reply. As to your library and the
'efficient' version of get/put, you can't really compare those, can you ?
Gabriel disliked my edo_save () and edo_load () interface according to his
documentation, but the reason I had for such an
interface, is the mere fact that unlike with 'random' access, such as provided
with your library, the length of records is
_unknown_. I can understand Gabriel choice as well though. You can easily
convert a program using get and put this way. And I
can also come up with tons of programs where random access is a must, and the
binary print/get is just not the smartest thing to
do. Visa versa, in many cases where you 'once' have to load-up lots of diverse
data, created by an Euphoria program, or when you
want to store 'states' of variables, without any hassle, there is no way around
using get/print and for larger amounts of data
the more efficient bget and bprint.
As to your 'spam', the reason I initially responded was more the
'set-an-example' and 'fed-up--with-spam'. Your message was
somewhere in the grey area and it was just a direction I instinctually
(spelling?) refused to want to go to. Sort of like with
genetically altered food. Currently its not a bad thing, but is a direction we
want to head ? A similar discussion. Anyway, my
apologies as well, and more especially to the rest of the list-server as well.
My reply was most likely as irrelevant to most as
yours.
Now, to give this mail some 'euphoric'-meaning and as to my secret agenda... I
am developing a library also offering certain IO
functions. Actually, its a library offering a number of features. Including
classes (oh, no, not another class library !, trust
me, it doesn't even look like another wheel.) , structures, key-association
classes, logbook-classes, fake-directory classes
offering multiple current-directories, allowing you to use relative paths to
change the one of these fake-current directories
and relative file+path-names. It offers many new wildcard and sequence
manipulation routines, including 'search' (dimensionally
free 'find'), 'search_match', 'replace', 'replace_match', separate,
separate_match, melt, merge and turn. And they're all done,
except for the documentation and some example programs. You can download it
already from my site, which is even more incomplete
than it used to be due to reconstruction, although there are no broken links,
just 'removed' links.
Now, lets put this 'soap box' behind us. I will try to minimize my mails the
next few weeks, because I feel (and I think, you
and Gabriel should too) that our activity this last week was a bit dominating
and I'm sure many (silent) subscribers are feeling
and thinking the same.
Ralf
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
