Steve Holden writes:
> Unknown wrote:
>> On 2009-01-12, John Machin wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't think your question was stupid. Stupid was (a) CP/M recording
>>> file size as number of 128-byte sectors, forcing the use of an in-band
>>> EOF marker for text files (b) MS continuing to regard Ctrl-Z as
Raps cane on floor.
It's probably an "end-of-file" sentinel because 'Z' is the last letter
of the alphabet. I suspect it comes from MIT. Unix, developed at a
telephone company, uses \x4, which was, in fact, the ASCII in-band
end-of-transmission code and would disconnect a teletype.
Does this
Steve Holden wrote:
> Unknown wrote:
>> On 2009-01-12, John Machin wrote:
>>> I didn't think your question was stupid. Stupid was (a) CP/M recording
>>> file size as number of 128-byte sectors, forcing the use of an in-band
>>> EOF marker for text files (b) MS continuing to regard Ctrl-Z as an EOF
On 2009-01-14, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> En Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:04:33 -0200, Terry Reedy
> escribió:
>
>> Gabriel Genellina wrote:
>>> En Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:00:16 -0200, John Machin
>>> escribió:
>>>
I didn't think your question was stupid. Stupid was (a) CP/M recording
file size
On 2009-01-14, Steve Holden wrote:
> Unknown wrote:
>> On 2009-01-12, John Machin wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't think your question was stupid. Stupid was (a) CP/M recording
>>> file size as number of 128-byte sectors, forcing the use of an in-band
>>> EOF marker for text files (b) MS continuing to reg
"Steve Holden" wrote:
> Unknown wrote:
> > On 2009-01-12, John Machin wrote:
> > I believe that "feature" was inherited by CP/M from DEC OSes
> > (RSX-11 or RSTS-11). AFAICT, all of CP/M's file I/O API
> > (including the FCB) was lifted almost directly from DEC's
> > PDP-11 stuff, which probab
En Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:04:33 -0200, Terry Reedy
escribió:
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:00:16 -0200, John Machin
escribió:
I didn't think your question was stupid. Stupid was (a) CP/M recording
file size as number of 128-byte sectors, forcing the use of an in-band
EOF
Unknown wrote:
> On 2009-01-12, John Machin wrote:
>
>> I didn't think your question was stupid. Stupid was (a) CP/M recording
>> file size as number of 128-byte sectors, forcing the use of an in-band
>> EOF marker for text files (b) MS continuing to regard Ctrl-Z as an EOF
>> decades after peopl
On 2009-01-12, John Machin wrote:
> I didn't think your question was stupid. Stupid was (a) CP/M recording
> file size as number of 128-byte sectors, forcing the use of an in-band
> EOF marker for text files (b) MS continuing to regard Ctrl-Z as an EOF
> decades after people stopped writing Ctrl-
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:00:16 -0200, John Machin
escribió:
I didn't think your question was stupid. Stupid was (a) CP/M recording
file size as number of 128-byte sectors, forcing the use of an in-band
EOF marker for text files (b) MS continuing to regard Ctrl-Z as an E
On Jan 13, 10:12 pm, "sim.sim" wrote:
>
> Ah John, thank you for your explanations!
> My first impression was that your comments does not relates to my
> question,
> but I've found new things where I used to think there was nothing.
>
> Now it is interesting to me how one have to give reasons to u
On 12 янв, 16:00, John Machin wrote:
> On Jan 13, 12:45 am, "sim.sim" wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 ÑÎ×, 23:40, John Machin wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 11, 2:45šam, "sim.sim" wrote:
>
> > > > Hi all!
>
> > > > I had touch with some different python behavior: I was tried to write
> > > > into a file a string
En Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:00:16 -0200, John Machin
escribió:
I didn't think your question was stupid. Stupid was (a) CP/M recording
file size as number of 128-byte sectors, forcing the use of an in-band
EOF marker for text files (b) MS continuing to regard Ctrl-Z as an EOF
decades after people s
On Jan 13, 12:45 am, "sim.sim" wrote:
> On 10 ÑÎ×, 23:40, John Machin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 2:45šam, "sim.sim" wrote:
>
> > > Hi all!
>
> > > I had touch with some different python behavior: I was tried to write
> > > into a file a string with the '\x1a' symbol, and for FreeBSD system,
On 10 янв, 23:40, John Machin wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2:45 am, "sim.sim" wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi all!
>
> > I had touch with some different python behavior: I was tried to write
> > into a file a string with the '\x1a' symbol, and for FreeBSD system,
> > it gives expected result:
>
> > >>> open("test", "
On Jan 11, 2:45 am, "sim.sim" wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I had touch with some different python behavior: I was tried to write
> into a file a string with the '\x1a' symbol, and for FreeBSD system,
> it gives expected result:
>
> >>> open("test", "w").write('before\x1aafter')
> >>> open('test').read()
>
sim.sim wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I had touch with some different python behavior: I was tried to write
> into a file a string with the '\x1a' symbol, and for FreeBSD system,
> it gives expected result:
>
open("test", "w").write('before\x1aafter')
open('test').read()
> 'before\x1aafter'
>
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:45:53 -0800, sim.sim wrote:
> I had touch with some different python behavior: I was tried to write
> into a file a string with the '\x1a' symbol, and for FreeBSD system, it
> gives expected result:
>
open("test", "w").write('before\x1aafter') open('test').read()
> 'be
Hi all!
I had touch with some different python behavior: I was tried to write
into a file a string with the '\x1a' symbol, and for FreeBSD system,
it gives expected result:
>>> open("test", "w").write('before\x1aafter')
>>> open('test').read()
'before\x1aafter'
but for my WinXP box, it gives so
19 matches
Mail list logo
