[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][
- Subject: Re: VA|01
- From: "B. Gillessen" b.gillessen@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:32:04 +0100
At 16:41 12.11.2002 cld@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>> What is -"\"> about?
> The hyphen in your quote is (or should be) Ascii-240. It means "contains". The
> quoted statement translates as, "If Save/Get 05 contains the backslash".
> Ascii-240 is the inverse of Ascii-238 ("is contained in"). Unlike 238, however,
> 240 doesn't return a positional value; it returns TRUE or FALSE.
That explains my problems. Unlike Ascii 238 (which is well known to
me) Ascii 240 is not only undocumented but also - much worse - not
implemented in the DOS version of euroscript. (But it seems to be
implemented in the Windows version as there no errors are caused.)
> What is Euroscript, anyway? What advantage does it have over XyWrite? And what
> is its level of compatibility with Xy4? Until you clarify the last question,
> you may just be spinning your wheels....
euroscript is the German version of XyWrite. The memnonics are
localised but the SPL commands seem to remain unchanged (well,
this was what I had thougt until yesterday ...). So, there should not
be an advantage over XyWrite. (But one big disadvantage: due to
different memnonics U2 will not run under euroscript without a certain
amount of customization ...) And with at least the deviation regarding
Ascii 240 I can definitely bury all my hopes to port U2 into a euroscript
compatible version as it would not only mean to translate the
memnonics into its German equivalents but also to find workarounds
for each and every case where Ascii 240 (or a possible other incompatible
XPL function) is used.
At 19:55 13.11.2002 holmgren@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> There are two XPL containment schemes, the first new in Xy4 (and possibly not
> found in Signature -- when you mention "SPL", that was Signature's name for XPL,
> perhaps a tipoff to the lineage of EuroScript code), the second in existence
> since Xy3:
Yes. Apparently, the German DOS version has been coded on basis of
Signature and did not get built in the latest tricks of XPL. However,
the Windows version seems later to have made up for the backlog.
(Which does not really help me as the DOS version is definitely the
better one. Bad luck.)
Anyway, thanks again to both of you for your explanations.