char[] function(char[]) escape and unescape

"escaped\tstring\n"
-->"escaped\\tstring\\n"

In article <cs67ip$2rnk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, JapA says...
>
>char[] function(char[]) escape and unescape
>
>"escaped\tstring\n"
>-->"escaped\\tstring\\n"
>
>

Maybe I'm just me incable of understanding "programspeak", but what exactly are you trying to say?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:48:42 +0000 (UTC), rev <rev_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

> In article <cs67ip$2rnk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, JapA says...
>>
>> char[] function(char[]) escape and unescape
>>
>> "escaped\tstring\n"
>> -->"escaped\\tstring\\n"
>>
>>
>
> Maybe I'm just me incable of understanding "programspeak", but what exactly are
> you trying to say?
>
>

I'm guessing one of:
1) a function is escaping a string he didn't want it to (unlikely)
2) he wants a function that will (use `strings like this` (non-shifted ~,
 under esc) for completley literal string, I would love to see the function
 that does it the other way around)
3) He's a monkey that randomly typed something

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

lol

"Simon Buchan" <buchan.home@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:opskk1bud6stcuho@simon...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:48:42 +0000 (UTC), rev <rev_member@pathlink.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <cs67ip$2rnk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, JapA says...
> >>
> >> char[] function(char[]) escape and unescape
> >>
> >> "escaped\tstring\n"
> >> -->"escaped\\tstring\\n"
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Maybe I'm just me incable of understanding "programspeak", but what
> > exactly are
> > you trying to say?
> >
> >
>
> I'm guessing one of:
> 1) a function is escaping a string he didn't want it to (unlikely)
> 2) he wants a function that will (use `strings like this` (non-shifted ~,
>   under esc) for completley literal string, I would love to see the
function
>   that does it the other way around)
> 3) He's a monkey that randomly typed something
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Simon Buchan wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:48:42 +0000 (UTC), rev <rev_member@pathlink.com>  wrote:
> 
>> In article <cs67ip$2rnk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, JapA says...
>>
>>>
>>> char[] function(char[]) escape and unescape
>>>
>>> "escaped\tstring\n"
>>> -->"escaped\\tstring\\n"
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Maybe I'm just me incable of understanding "programspeak", but what  exactly are
>> you trying to say?
>>
>>
> 
> I'm guessing one of:
> 1) a function is escaping a string he didn't want it to (unlikely)
> 2) he wants a function that will (use `strings like this` (non-shifted ~,
>  under esc) for completley literal string, I would love to see the function
>  that does it the other way around)
> 3) He's a monkey that randomly typed something
> 

I'm gonna have to go with 3. :P

Actually, maybe he was asking was for the ability to have a certain function called when an escape sequence is used in a string?

Perhaps we're all sexist for assuming it's a he?

Or perhaps the English language is to blame for not having gender-free pronouns...
Yes, I indeed now believe that it was really just an indirect criticism of the English language by example...

Okay, enough crack for me...

-Paul B.

In article <cs9904$1kc$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Paul Bonser says...
>
>Or perhaps the English language is to blame for not having gender-free pronouns...

[Way offtopic here, and just for fun...]

Well, we do have "it" and "its", but for some reason they're concidered "rude" (almost derogatory) when used in reference to a person.  At best "it" would accurately describe a hemaphrodite, which would be exceedingly unlikely to be accurate since among what few hemaphrodites exist, most proclaim a gender to avoid such problems anyway.

The closest "polite" form we have is "he/she" which is, sadly, a lingustic kludge at best.

And don't even get me started on the "alternating pronoun gender every other paragraph" thing; man, that stuff gets confusing. :)

(I wonder if somewhere there's a newsgroup full of english teachers, journalists and Phd's attempting to develop an evolved/improved English-like language ... hrm)

As to the original content: I haven't a clue as to what that's about.

Pragma - ericanderton at yahoo

pragma wrote:
> In article <cs9904$1kc$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Paul Bonser says...
> 
>>Or perhaps the English language is to blame for not having gender-free pronouns...
> 
> 
> [Way offtopic here, and just for fun...]
> 
> Well, we do have "it" and "its", but for some reason they're concidered "rude"
> (almost derogatory) when used in reference to a person.  At best "it" would
> accurately describe a hemaphrodite, which would be exceedingly unlikely to be
> accurate since among what few hemaphrodites exist, most proclaim a gender to
> avoid such problems anyway.  
> 
> The closest "polite" form we have is "he/she" which is, sadly, a lingustic
> kludge at best.  
> 
> And don't even get me started on the "alternating pronoun gender every other
> paragraph" thing; man, that stuff gets confusing. :)
> 
> (I wonder if somewhere there's a newsgroup full of english teachers, journalists
> and Phd's attempting to develop an evolved/improved English-like language ...
> hrm)
> 
> As to the original content: I haven't a clue as to what that's about.
> 
> Pragma - ericanderton at yahoo

My English teacher in high school told me there are two standards for gender-free pronouns, both use by a few College professors. I wonder what kind of "English Standards Agency" there is or whatnot? I want to see the ANSI Recommendation for the English standard version 1.5 :)

Okay, Sorry all, I'm done with this thread...maybe.

-PIB.

> The closest "polite" form we have is "he/she" which is, sadly, a lingustic kludge at best.

Around here, we say "they" for an indefinite third person.

Something I also can't get my head around - spoken language has been around much longer than written language, yes?  Then why are there two distinctly separate sets of rules for spoken and written English?  Shouldn't the written language reflect the spoken?  No, apparently not - we always have to use "one" in our papers, when no one says "one."  Confusing.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>The closest "polite" form we have is "he/she" which is, sadly, a lingustic
>>kludge at best.
> 
> 
> Around here, we say "they" for an indefinite third person.
> 
> Something I also can't get my head around - spoken language has been around
> much longer than written language, yes?  Then why are there two distinctly
> separate sets of rules for spoken and written English?  Shouldn't the
> written language reflect the spoken?  No, apparently not - we always have to
> use "one" in our papers, when no one says "one."  Confusing.
> 
> 

Okay, I lied about staying out of this topic, but I couldn't resist.
The word "they" is plural, and therefore semantically wrong for this kind of use.

I found some sites with some info on ones that seem almost suitable..
http://footnotes.jinkies.org.uk/pronouns.html
http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/

Okay, I should leave this alone now :)

-PIB

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:05:10 -0800, Paul Bonser <misterpib@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>> The closest "polite" form we have is "he/she" which is, sadly, a lingustic
>>> kludge at best.
>>   Around here, we say "they" for an indefinite third person.
>>  Something I also can't get my head around - spoken language has been around
>> much longer than written language, yes?  Then why are there two distinctly
>> separate sets of rules for spoken and written English?  Shouldn't the
>> written language reflect the spoken?  No, apparently not - we always have to
>> use "one" in our papers, when no one says "one."  Confusing.
>>
>
> Okay, I lied about staying out of this topic, but I couldn't resist.
> The word "they" is plural, and therefore semantically wrong for this kind of use.
>
> I found some sites with some info on ones that seem almost suitable..
> http://footnotes.jinkies.org.uk/pronouns.html
> http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/
>
> Okay, I should leave this alone now :)
>
> -PIB

Note also that from the 'orrible sexist market I currently see, men outnumber
women by at LEAST 10 : 1 in programming.

One is a little to vauge, not to mention a bit Brittish Upper-Class™ (Can't
beleive I remember the key-stroke for that). He/She is terrible. (I would probbably
rather be called She that He/She, anyway) Alternating is asking for trouble.
They, as said, is plural. It, likewise, is considered demeaning. As a side note, the
only acceptable genderless singular pronoun for a sophont (The more PC term for sentient,
cause animals feel too <roll eyes/>) I've heard is Ve, which is in fact for beings
where the idea of gender are irrelevant, like programs. Go figure.

Don't lose hope, though, with any luck, the Americans will totally factor out
gender from the language, and we already got rid of (most) gendered inanimite
objects, as in French. (Other 'Romance' languages, too? (As in, derived
from Roman, not because they're romantic :P))

BTW, sorry if I come across as trying to hand out knowledge from on high...
guess it's just natural when your just so damn smart ];)

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/