> From: Gavin Scott <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > Stan writes:
> >
> > > UGLY, and highly misleading!  That's why the decimal point was
invented,
> > > and why the concept of putting the units next to the value was
invented!
>
> > Though I find it interesting, if amusing, that rounding is still
involved.
> > After all, 1 MB != 1000 * 1 KB.
>
Jeff, Stan, Gavin, etc., OK, time to think outside the box again, as there
seems to be no agreement on a format that is not "gly", is meaningful, etc.
 Here it is:

1.  1. Do away with the need for programmmatic access to LISTF.

2.  Add to LISTF a facility to add a K (1000's, after all we are
    tens orienetd - how many fingers do you have?) when the file
    size ecxeeds what will fit or eliminate REC/Blaock, whatever.
    Commas would also be nice for readability

3.  For programmatic acces, a new intrinsic - LISTFread? with parameters
    file name - could be @.@ or what ever, Account name, Group anme,
    EOF and whatever else is thought necesary.  Either give the program
    a large bufer full of information requsted or, better, a parameter
    means start or continue or maybe a parameter by reference that says
    what number of the LISTF lines to return.  When the programmer sets
    this to zero it is to mean start at the beginnning.  Details of this
    can ne worked out.

Points:

1.  There are two requirements: readability and prgrammatic access.  Why
    try to meet both requirements with same thing/

2.  Any program that has to handle  huge files will have to be changed
anyway - so the intrinsic version should be used.

3.  If the "K" does not break the existing programs, and it will most,
    tough, progress comes at a prce.

4.  With an intrinsic, other inoformation about the files could be added
    at a later date by adding parameters.  This would not break the
    then existing programs.

Regards,

Nick (wishing I. Mail) had a spell checkeer) Demos

[log in to unmask]
Performance Software Group
Tel. (410) 788-6777 Fax (410) 788-4476