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

Re: BX vs. BC (everybody relax, please)

On 12/16/97 at 03:49 AM,
  Eric Van Tassel <101233.342@xxxxxxxx> said (in so many words):

>        BC cia .[94].[32]. XC
>just left the 94s unaltered in the file;
>        BX cia .[94].[32]. Q2
>either didn't work or actually crashed (sorry, I can't remember which);
>        BX (cia/t .[94].[32].) Q2
>did work, and worked just fine.

>I have no idea what "/t" means, or why the third lemma above works and
>the second one doesn't. Since then, I continue to use BC/XC as my default
>(if only out of habit left over from Xy3); whenever I have a BC cia ...
>XC command that gives me trouble, my first recourse is to change it to BX
>(cia/t ...) Q2 and see if that helps. Often it does.
 Firstly, about the above. The parens in the last one are doing all the
work--they are an alternate way (alternate to Q2) of delimiting the BX
command (right? BX has to know how far to go---if you want real trouble
try a BX without a Q2 or parens). The /t is (I'm on the road, but surely
this is in the manual) a switch for all the search and change commands,
telling them to do it from the Top.
 Secondly. I fail to understand the fuss that this thread has turned
into. BX has a minor gotcha (I wouldn't call it a bug) that Holmgren
elucidated--do an FF before BX. This is the only problem with BX. Once
one has that little glitchavoider in place BX is indeed superior in
XPL-ing to BC.


An unwatched pot boils immediately
"What would life be without arithmetic, but a scene of horrors?"
            -Rev. Sydney Smith, letter to young lady, 22 July 1835

David Auerbach              auerbach@xxxxxxxx
Department of Philosophy & Religion
Box 8103
Raleigh, 27695-8103