In <[email protected]>, on
09/11/2013
at 11:00 AM, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> said:
>Sometimes it appears that you deliberately over-prune quoted material
>so you can refute something the previous poster never said.
I have no doubt that it appears so to people who don't understand what
I wrote, or to people who write ambiguous text and fault others for
not guessing the correct meaning.
>"It" was my program
Then why the nonsense about EDIT? And how does "it" have anything do
do with any suggestion of mine? ("What you suggest is more like batch
than interactive.")
>And editing a file to supply as input to a program rather than
>replying to prompts with a terminal makes the operation of that
>program more batch-like than interactive,
A program that is not written to do standard terminal I/O is already
batch; I don't see how using EDIT to prepare input (which I *didn't*
suggest in the first place) could make it any more batch like.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
