🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote
>> I think this is broken.  Seems to me this will read 3-character chunks from
>> the input and compare them against %%%, but if the stuff being skipped is

In article <1527@chinacat.Unicom.COM> woody@chinacat.Unicom.COM
(Woody Baker @ Eagle Signal) writes:

> That is why the string of comments is 6 characters long.  That way you
> should be garanteed to get at least one match.  I tried making the
> line 10 or 12 characters long, and it still failed.  I also tried
> changing the (%%%) to something else like (***)  and changing the
> line of comments to
> %***********
> This failed also.

Sorry Woody and all the others who had to read my previous posting, I had
concentrated on the code and missed the fact that the end sentinal was 
actually SIX percent signs.

> What I cannot understand, is why this works on a PS-810, and Apple
> Laserwriters, but fails on the NEC 890. (and only the nec 890 to my
> knowlege).  I know that things worked flawlessly on my PS-810, but
> failed on the nec 890.

It is a good question why it does different things in any case.  Is it
possible that NEC lets the carriage returns and the line feeds through
unmolested?  Is it possible there is a certain minimal string size
imposed for efficiency and the (   ) is allocating more memory than just
three characters, so the readstring is actually reading larger chunks?

If I had one of these printers I would arrange to send back the chunks:

   { %loop
       currentfile(   )readstring
       { %ifelse
          dup == % added by zben
          (%%%) eq         %look for separator
          { exit } if
       }{
          pop             %hangs, looking forever
       } ifelse
   } loop

The output from the == would be very informative.  It is possible the
(%%%) construct is being improperly parsed.  Does %% mean anything to 
this printer?  Is it possible the exit could be exiting the IF block but 
not the LOOP block?  Cannot speculate, must have experimental evidence...

I still think I would have done it like this:

   80 string
   { %loop
       dup currentfile exch readline exch
       (%%%) eq or { exit } if
   } loop
   pop

(You can tell I'm an old dinosaur tamer, that 80 is a dead giveaway! :-)
-- 
Ben Cranston <zben@umd2.umd.edu>
A determined iconoclast, it would be better to assume the opinion expressed
above is the diametric OPPOSITE to that of the Warm and Fuzzy Network Group
of Egregious State University...