[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][ Date Index][ Subject Index]

Re: v112 U2--just to clarify

 Look, I don't want this to be interpreted as any sort of criticism
 of slight of any kind, but will it still be possible to add routines
 to the new version of U2? I think that it would be very nice if
 this were still possible. Over the past year and a half, Carl has
 produced a number of routines on the fly, so to speak, that I use
 regularly, and I don't think that they are part of the regular U2
 issue. Two come to mind. One is called EMAIL. It converts a regu-
 lar XY4 file, with accented letters, italics, etc. to a file that
 can be e-mailed. I find it very useful. Another is called HOP, that
 creates something like hyper-text, in the sense that I can hop from
 one file to another, or within the same file, either to create or get
 a more ample explanation of a point I am making, or just to carry
 hidden text that I may not want to make public. These are just two
 files that I would want to be able to import into the new U2, ...version
 114, I think. If that will still be possible, I'll be a happy camper.

 M.W. Poirier

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Robert Holmgren wrote:

> ** Reply to note from "J. R. Fox"  on Mon, 09 Sep
> 2002 17:54:31 -0800
> Jordan:
> Re: candidates for U2
> > Unless some [debut-in-maillist frames] just fall through the cracks,
> Very few evaporate in the fog of forgetting
> > I'm guessing it must
> > be how useful a new frame is apt to be to how many users . . . .
> Sure. And how general the purpose. If a routine is very narrow, and
> tailored to one situation only -- unless a critical situation (e.g.
> saving a loaded Help file, which is normally impossible) -- it either
> gets generalized (LISTWDS just emerged at the "public" end of a
> specific-to-general evolution, from a list of occurrences of one
> particular character, to any $tring), or it gets tossed -- or tacked
> on to the end of our own personal U2s, as reminders that
> might-come-in-handy-someday.
> This may not be the place, but anyone who has a whiz of a routine in
> the bag, or an idea for a whiz routine, or a critical need for a
> general, *publicly-useful* routine, is most welcome to pass it on to
> us, or absolutely to air the idea. It was never our intent to
> monopolize U2, but rather to create a structure flexible enough to
> accommodate just about any program, and to encourage by example
> contributions from others. The only aspect of this U2 project that
> has disappointed me is the small number of users who kicked in with
> ideas or real code -- I anticipated that there were oodles of
> routines out there (apropos of nothing, some stalwarts may recall my
> 1980s predecessor to U2 called OODLES, of which there are numerous
> traces still in U2). Sometimes the most outlandish ideas turn out to
> be not only feasible, but quite engrossing to actualize.
> ----------
> Robert Holmgren
> holmgren@xxxxxxxx
> ----------