🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7221@umd5.umd.edu>, zben@umd5.umd.edu (Ben Cranston) writes:
> I wrote
> 
> imposed for efficiency and the (   ) is allocating more memory than just
> three characters, so the readstring is actually reading larger chunks?

I think that this would violate the specs.

> 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

I hope some one will try this.  My hypothesis is that someone decided that
it was ineffecient for the interpreter to have to read in, and parse out
a comment line, so they simply prevented readstring from ever getting it.
Glenn posted some code that seems to refute that, but it seems to me
to be the only thing that explains all the conditions.
I don't remember what his code was now, I could go hunt it up in the
archieves, but I seem to remember that it might not have excercized
readstring.


> 
> 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! :-)

Yep.  No kidding.  I am one also.  Last count I had 16 diffrent computers
sitting around my house. Most of them are even in working condition!.  Some
of them are OLD.  The computer in my PS-810 has more horsepower than any
of them 8=}

Cheers
Woody

Sorry for these few lines, but inews is really picky.  It won't
post anything unless the poster has written more new text than he
has included.  So In order to satisfy it, these lines are being written.

:=>