[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@xxxxxxxxxx
> ----------