OpenEuphoria

Re: registration and requests

• Posted by Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET> Feb 13, 1999
• 472 views

Carlos Valdes writes:
> After almost two years using Euphoria I decided to register through
> the web. I had not registered before because I considered some
> registering options as expensive to the price of the package and the
> cheap one, through the web,  difficult.
> I was right. I got an automatic reply  saying that my address is not
> my address.
> Rob, you more than deserve your money, but this is frustrating, I
> don´t want to keep trying, sending variations of the same tune, and
> maybe some day getting registered. I wanted the download version
> and no more.  :(

I'm sorry that you ran into a glitch. Over 95% of the time
PsL orders go very smoothly, but they do have some strict
security measures in place to prevent possible fraud.
It just means that you have to resubmit your Web order,
and be careful not to mistype your address or whatever.
We've only had one case where someone actually used
a stolen credit card in an attempt to register Euphoria.

I received a copy of the message that PsL sent you.
Apparently the address that you filled in was not exactly
the same as the address that your credit card company
has on record for you. You could try submitting your Web order
again as PsL suggests, or, you can call them at 713-524-6394
and talk to a human.

If you are frustrated with PsL, you could try one of the
following instead:

     * send RDS a check or money order in U.S. or Canadian funds
        $39 U.S. or $60 Canadian (Our bank accepts most major
        currencies, but not Mexican currency.)

     * send RDS *cash* in U.S. or Canadian funds. We don't
        recommend sending cash, but if you are really stuck,
        you can do it.

You don't have to go through PsL to avoid the $5 shipping charge.
We can e-mail the download instructions as soon as we receive
payment by any means.

-------------------------

> Why there is not something like:

> repeat
> .
> .
> .
> until x>10    --condition tested at end of loop

Euphoria tries to be a "minimal" language, where
we avoid adding language features for things that can be handled
almost as well by existing features.

> seq[..5] and seq[6..]

I've been tempted to add this, but in the first case is it really
so hard to type a '1'?
e.g.
  seq[1..5] instead of seq[..5]

The second form would be useful, but I still can't make up
my mind about it.

Regards,
     Rob Craig
     Rapid Deployment Software
     http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/