🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <815947544snx@holly.demon.co.uk>
           mcr@holly.demon.co.uk "Mark Rogers" writes:

> Would be hard (or memory intensive) to extend this so that anything from 
> the right of a hash was considered a comment? Eg:

This is a script file of NET commands which is interpreted line by line,
so the only cost would be of the smop and not of memory.

You can right now use a mixture of spaces, blank lines and commands to
make thinks pretty readable.  Mine was commented only with a view to 
reminding me what I am doing, so things could still be improved:

-----------
# ========================================
#     Misc
# ========================================
#

# F1
fkey 59 "reset\n"

# F2
fkey 60 "asystat\n"

# F3
fkey 61 "ping post.demon.co.uk\n"

# F4
fkey 62 "nntp kick news.demon.co.uk\n"

# Shift F4
fkey 87 "nntp kick disrupt.demon.co.uk\n"
---------------------

Regards,
-- 
   Tony - G3SKR / AA2PM                  email: tgold@panix.com
                                                tgold@microvst.demon.co.uk
                                        packet: g3skr@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na

Anthony R. Gold (tgold@microvst.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <815947544snx@holly.demon.co.uk>
>            mcr@holly.demon.co.uk "Mark Rogers" writes:

> > Would be hard (or memory intensive) to extend this so that anything from 
> > the right of a hash was considered a comment? Eg:

> This is a script file of NET commands which is interpreted line by line,
> so the only cost would be of the smop and not of memory.

No, programming adds code to the code space which in turn impacts of
free memory. It may be possible to modify the code to work as
requested without increasing its size, but I won't commit to that
without a careful look.

> You can right now use a mixture of spaces, blank lines and commands to
> make thinks pretty readable.  Mine was commented only with a view to 
> reminding me what I am doing, so things could still be improved:

[deleted]

Indeed that is the way I document my own files.

-- 
Malcolm S. Muir
Sunderland
England

On Thursday, in article <815949662.17979@thokk.demon.co.uk>
     Malcolm@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" wrote:

MM> Anthony R. Gold (tgold@microvst.demon.co.uk) wrote:
MM> > In article <815947544snx@holly.demon.co.uk>
MM> >            mcr@holly.demon.co.uk "Mark Rogers" writes:
MM> 
MM> > > Would be hard (or memory intensive) to extend this so that anything from 
MM> > > the right of a hash was considered a comment? Eg:
MM> 
MM> > This is a script file of NET commands which is interpreted line by line,
MM> > so the only cost would be of the smop and not of memory.

You could store your script file somewhere else, and generate
autoexec.net from it with a pre-processor.  And that's actually
what I do myself, though not to make comments prettier.

However, I don't think that would appeal to many.

MM> No, programming adds code to the code space which in turn impacts of
MM> free memory. It may be possible to modify the code to work as
MM> requested without increasing its size, but I won't commit to that
MM> without a careful look.

Probably take all of, oh, an extra 20 bytes?  But I support
your caution, I really hate to see extra ka9q memory soaked up
on trivialities.  To parody the old "How does a project get to
be a year late?  One day at a time!" one could say "How does
a program get too big for 640K?  20 bytes at a time!".

MM> 
MM> > You can right now use a mixture of spaces, blank lines and commands to
MM> > make thinks pretty readable.  Mine was commented only with a view to 
MM> > reminding me what I am doing, so things could still be improved:
MM> 
MM> [deleted]
MM> 
MM> Indeed that is the way I document my own files.

Thankfully I don't program in Fortran any more.  All comments
marked by a 'C' in column 1.   Yuck.

I know it's easier when hacking up a script file facility
to design it in a line oriented fashion.  But if it's
designed free format from the start it really isn't much
harder to do -- any aspiring script file designers out
there please note!

--
John Washington

In article <815959624snz@wash.demon.co.uk>
   John Washington <john@wash.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
> You could store your script file somewhere else, and generate
> autoexec.net from it with a pre-processor.  And that's actually
> what I do myself, though not to make comments prettier.

It makes maintainance more difficult - or, at least, more time consuming. 
I guess you could convert demon.bat into a make file, forcing 
autoexec.net to be rebuilt if it has changed before net.exe is run, but I 
like a simple life :-)

(Actually, the idea of converting demon.bat into a make file sounds like 
the sort of thing I'd do on a wet Sunday; sad, isn't it?)

Mark.
-- 
int MeaningOfLife (void) { return 42; }   // mcr@holly.demon.co.uk
function MeaningOfLife :integer; begin MeaningOfLife := 6 * 9 end;

On Monday, in article <816330614snx@holly.demon.co.uk>
     mcr@holly.demon.co.uk "Mark Rogers" wrote:

MR> In article <815959624snz@wash.demon.co.uk>
MR>    John Washington <john@wash.demon.co.uk> writes:
MR> > 
MR> > You could store your script file somewhere else, and generate
MR> > autoexec.net from it with a pre-processor.  And that's actually
MR> > what I do myself, though not to make comments prettier.
MR> 
MR> It makes maintainance more difficult - or, at least, more time consuming.

If you'd said more inelegant I'd have agreed.

Make a file x.bat (I suppose a Win95 user might call it
modify_my_autoexec_net.bat) something like:

        edit autoex.bat
        prepro <autoex.bat >autoexec.bat

MR> I guess you could convert demon.bat into a make file, forcing 
MR> autoexec.net to be rebuilt if it has changed before net.exe is run, but I 
MR> like a simple life :-)

Or keep demon.bat pretty much as is, just adding one line
to call 'make'.  However, I'd rather not have that overhead
every time I call Demon, since the other way is adequate.

MR> (Actually, the idea of converting demon.bat into a make file sounds like 
MR> the sort of thing I'd do on a wet Sunday; sad, isn't it?)

I'd join you creating alt.wet-sunday.things-to-do, except
I've just discovered dry rot in my bathroom, so I know
what I'll be doing for the next few Sundays.  :-(

[rest of post censored for being even more off-topic]

--
John Washington

In article <816378620snz@wash.demon.co.uk>
   John Washington <john@wash.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
> Make a file x.bat (I suppose a Win95 user might call it
> modify_my_autoexec_net.bat) something like:
> 
>         edit autoex.bat
>         prepro <autoex.bat >autoexec.bat

If I had a penny for every time I've said "autoexec.bat" instead of 
"autoexec.net" I'd have, oh, about 2p :-)

This does have advantages that DIS.EXE can't touch autoexec.net (or at 
least it can, but you can restore it easily enough). Coincidentally it 
also has the disadvantage that any changes DIS.EXE makes to autoexec.net 
get lost unless you also copy them into your own version :-)

However, this all gets away from my original intention. I believe that a 
lot of the configuration files would benefit from being better self-
documented. There's no reason for the files to be user-unfriendly - 
indeed, they're already better than most in this respect. Improving the 
way that comments can be entered would enhance this further.

(The same applies equally to files like demon.bat; unfortunately I doubt 
that MicroSoft are likely to add end-of-line commenting to DOS :-()

Mark.
-- 
int MeaningOfLife (void) { return 42; }   // mcr@holly.demon.co.uk
function MeaningOfLife :integer; begin MeaningOfLife := 6 * 9 end;

In article <816505999snx@holly.demon.co.uk>
           mcr@holly.demon.co.uk "Mark Rogers" writes:

> (The same applies equally to files like demon.bat; unfortunately I doubt 
> that MicroSoft are likely to add end-of-line commenting to DOS :-()
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                   You mis-spelt 'anything'.
                                   hth. :)

-- 
Tom Wheeley, <holyhorns>, MAMSWWBUW
* TQ 1.0 * The 'Just So Quotes'.
A good USENET motto would be:
    a. "Together, a strong community."
    b. "Computers R Us."
    c. "I'm sick of programming, I think I'll just fuck around for a while 
        on company time."