In <[log in to unmask]> Jeanette Nutsford
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
> Jon Diercks <[log in to unmask]> said
>
>(snipped)
>>On the other hand, if by getting hung up on the semantics we've strayed from
>>the original intent of the enhancement, then I'd suggest dumping the ;RAW
>>keyword in favor of ;NONUM.  This would be more precise to the intent of the
>>function - force :PRINT to assume that there are *no* line numbers in the
>>file.  By abandoning the connotations associated with the word RAW we are
>>free to narrow the scope of the enhancement to just what it says.  So if
>>;NONUM were the keyword then I'd say that CCTLs should be treated the same
>>as before, blank them out.
>
>I totally agree with John.  This is the option name I could not think
of - NONUM
>- in my previous message.
 
Not to say that the commercial product MPEX is better, worse, or just
simply different, but ";NONUM" is just a few characters short of the
keyword chosen by the folks from VESOFT for exactly the same purpose --
";NONUMRECOGNIZE" (ok, it's a LOT of characters shorter, but who's
counting?)  "NONUMRECOGNIZE" means exaclty that -- do not consider
(recognize) the last 8 characters of the first line to indicate that
the file is numbered simply becuase they all happen to be digits.
 
I'll admit I'm a bit biased -- after all, I worked at VESOFT for 5
years.  While I think it would be wonderful if HP were to study the
MPEX manual on the %PRINT command and follow in their footsteps
(treading lightly to avoid copyright infringements, of course), I also
realize that VESOFT stays in business BECAUSE they offer something HP
does not (increased flexibility with commands) so if HP were to
essentially copy the entire flexibility of the MPEX %PRINT command,
VESOFT would be left looking like an imitator rather than an inovator.
 
 
--
Tom Emerson
[log in to unmask] (here)
[log in to unmask] (preferred)