>> Tcl encodes all data types as strings. I've been bitten by this
>> before... You write a Tcl script, it works fine, and then it encounters
>> some input that happens to contain a curly-bracket or a dollar sign and
>> Weird Crap happens...
> 
> That's one of the potential pitfalls with most scripting languages.

Now you know why I dislike scripting languages in general. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Autoconf doesn't make C portable

  It only makes the C program to compile and work in a multitude of
different architectures. Yeah, it doesn't make it portable, only portable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:47d6ca98@news.povray.org...

> Again, I tend to work with tens of thousands of files at once.

      Tens of THOUSANDS?? I'm not that shocked at what a programmer can do, 
but fair play for handling that.

       ~Steve~







>   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
>          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
>     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>       Tens of THOUSANDS?? I'm not that shocked at what a programmer can do, 
> but fair play for handling that.

Yeah. A couple weeks of raw audio, in 20-second chunks. Sadly, we throw 
most of it away. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I remember several occasions where if a certain 
> expression happened to return only 1 item, it tried to interpret the 
> item as a list. IOW, when the expression finds multiple matches, 
> everything works fine, but when it finds exactly 1 match it malfunctions 
> horribly. Took me ages to figure out why...

You would need to either return a list, or return one item. If you want 
to return either, you need to return a list of one item. Otherwise, yes, 
if you sometimes return a list, and sometimes return one item that looks 
like a malformed list, then you're going to confuse yourself.

if {$count > 1} {return $a}
if {$count == 1} {return [list $singleton]}

# Wrong:
# if {$count == 1} {return $singleton}


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Well ok, after that you wrote about chopping the file, which 
>> practically is what split does, but it should be able to work without 
>> creating millions of (temp)files in the middle of the process.
> 
> The problem is the size of the file. If I split it after the fact, I now 
> have *two* files, the original and the new one. So now instead of half 
> an hour of deleting directory entries, I have three hours of copying 
> data, followed by five minutes of deleting one directory entry.
> 
> Split doesn't split a file. It writes new files, each of which contain 
> pieces of the previous file.

With dd you could copy any section of the file into a new one.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure I remember several occasions where if a certain 
>> expression happened to return only 1 item, it tried to interpret the 
>> item as a list. IOW, when the expression finds multiple matches, 
>> everything works fine, but when it finds exactly 1 match it 
>> malfunctions horribly. Took me ages to figure out why...
> 
> You would need to either return a list, or return one item. If you want 
> to return either, you need to return a list of one item. Otherwise, yes, 
> if you sometimes return a list, and sometimes return one item that looks 
> like a malformed list, then you're going to confuse yourself.

If was more that I was processing a list, filtering out some of its 
content, and if it turned out that the result was exactly 1 element the 
script behaved in a different way than it did when the filtering yielded 
several elements.

But anyway, why worry? Just stop using Tcl. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> But anyway, why worry? Just stop using Tcl. ;-)

For some reason that reminded me of...

<FarSide> i had a guide that told u to put the 1.1.3 firmware file on 
the touch
<Brethil> It will be way faster even if you decrypt it on your computer 
and put the decrypted.dmg file on your iPod (should work, but I'm not 
100% sure
<FarSide> then run the upgrade
<PovAddict> FarSide: I did that to save myself from a hour-long download
<PovAddict> but the iPod still did decryption, extraction, patching, etc
<FarSide> i chose the ron popeal method...set it and forget it
<FarSide> i just went to bed
<FarSide> lol
<PovAddict> okay, time to try this again
<PovAddict> ah wait... to copy the firmware I need ssh
<PovAddict> to install ssh I need BSD subsystem
<PovAddict> BSD subsystem messes with Cydia (which I haven't installed yet)
<FarSide> yup
<PovAddict> or, I could install Cydia and get saurik's ssh
<Brethil> you can also use iPHUC
<Brethil> to copy over usb
<FarSide> i just suggest suicide
<FarSide> a lot easier
<FarSide> lol

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> With dd you could copy any section of the file into a new one.

But again, it would take a long time to copy that.  The point is to not 
slog a half a terabyte of data from one disk to another in order to do 
the processing.

It works out OK. It just takes surprisingly long. :-)  It's automated at 
this point, unless I specifically take it off automation, so it's not 
like I'm waiting for it. It just kind of surprised me that deleting a 
big file could take over a minute. Must be the ext3 journaling or 
something going on. Ext was never really optimized for big files.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> With dd you could copy any section of the file into a new one.
> 
> But again, it would take a long time to copy that.  The point is to not 
> slog a half a terabyte of data from one disk to another in order to do 
> the processing.
> 
> It works out OK. It just takes surprisingly long. :-)  It's automated at 
> this point, unless I specifically take it off automation, so it's not 
> like I'm waiting for it. It just kind of surprised me that deleting a 
> big file could take over a minute. Must be the ext3 journaling or 
> something going on. Ext was never really optimized for big files.

What do you do with the small section once you cut it? Can't you use 
pipes to avoid so many temporary files?

Post a reply to this message