 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/04/2010 10:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:28:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 22/04/2010 9:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently not. Dunno the current state, as I don't use Windows...
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> Your lighting bill must be huge ;-)
>
> :P
>
> Not so much, though, I prefer the darkness generally. ;-)
>
Have you checked your reflection in a mirror, lately?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Is there some advantage to supporting regular expressions?
>
> Yes, because if you don't know the exact string you're looking for, you
> can specify a more general string that is likely to be found.
Surely this almost never actually works though?
> I use it several times a week myself, reasons include chat log files in
> my IM client where I might need to find a conversation I've had in the
> past about something. I recently was trying to remember the name of an
> internal website, but I couldn't remember who I had talked to about it or
> the website name. I was able to use grep to find what I needed in a
> matter of seconds without searching (checks - "find -type f | wc -l" -
> 8694 chat log files across all the different IM protocols I use).
>
> Doing that by hand would be very tedious and would take days, and even
> then, I might not find what I was looking for.
As I say, not the kind of thing I ever need to do. (Although
occasionally I wish it was possible to search this newsgroup...)
>>> As Warp said, you also can traverse a directory structure with grep to
>>> find the file(s) that have the string in them.
>> I didn't know that. I thought grep was just for searching within one
>> file.
>
> If I tell you the 'net is wonderful resource for information, what will
> you say in response? ;-)
Suffice it to say that since I don't need grep, I hadn't deeply
researched its capabilities. (I only recently discovered that it's a
search tool, for example.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, well, I had noticed that you seem to know far more about COM
>> than I do.
>
> Not *that* much. Maybe a half a day's worth of learning?
Heh. I've spent somewhat more than half a day reading about it. What
I'll probably never do is actually use it...
>>> Which implementation do you use?
>> Smalltalk VisualWorks. I *think* it was v3.0...
>
> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/documentation/current/ReleaseNotes7.5.pdf
>
> They were up to a version that supports it (7.5) five years ago. You
> were working with V3.0. Perhaps you were using a pre-COM version that
> wouldn't run under Win98 or something?
No, we were running it under Windows 98. I guess the release we had just
didn't have COM support implemented yet. (Remember that Smalltalk is
basically its own little world. Talking to stuff outside probably isn't
a high priority.)
I recall having a look at v5 (I think) at some point, and while they'd
added lots of nice features, they made the system too complicated. I
didn't like it, so I went back to v3.
>>> Plus, you probably use Word and Excel, and they both support COM too.
>> You mean VBA supports COM?
>
> How do you think VBA talks to the application? Of course it supports
> COM. That's pretty much *all* it supports. It doesn't really do anything
> on its own.
Well, I guess that makes sense.
On the other hand, VBA doesn't seem to require you to memorise 20-digit
GUIDs or interface index numbers or any of the other stuff that the COM
documentation seems to indicate is necessary, so...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> So why compare with Linux? You're comparing with OpenSUSE.
OpenSUSE is the only distro deserving of a mention... ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/23/10 04:00, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> So why compare with Linux? You're comparing with OpenSUSE.
>
> OpenSUSE is the only distro deserving of a mention... ;)
This means WAR!
--
Every hard drive I've ever bought has been larger than all my previous
hard drives combined. And this is without even trying.
--Seen on Slashdot.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OpenSUSE is the only distro deserving of a mention... ;)
>
> This means WAR!
First there was Emacs vs Vi.
Then there was Windows vs Linux.
Then came AMD vs Intel.
And now we must have the War of the Distros. My god... it'll be terrifying!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> On the other hand, VBA doesn't seem to require you to memorise 20-digit
> GUIDs or interface index numbers or any of the other stuff that the COM
> documentation seems to indicate is necessary, so...?
I'm not sure what the question is. What do you think CreateObject does?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> OpenSUSE is the only distro deserving of a mention... ;)
>
It's not often that I agree with you, but you're right :-)
John
--
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvypbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum, || These opinions are mine alone, || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito || others can find their own || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> On the other hand, VBA doesn't seem to require you to memorise
>> 20-digit GUIDs or interface index numbers or any of the other stuff
>> that the COM documentation seems to indicate is necessary, so...?
>
> I'm not sure what the question is. What do you think CreateObject does?
What's CreateObject?
All I know is that I've never seen any VBA code with 20-digit GUIDs in
it. And I've never seen it in documentation either. It just pretends
that you're manipulating objects.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:26:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> Not so much, though, I prefer the darkness generally. ;-)
>>
>>
> Have you checked your reflection in a mirror, lately?
It's too dark for mirrors. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
