Re: LH vs. SAve

["Robert Holmgren" holmgren@xxxxxxxx]

** Reply to message from Harry Binswanger  on
Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:11:06 -0500


>> And what, pray, is Ctrl-S? Why refer to keystroke instead of
>> assignment?

> Okay, okay. I normally don't sin here, but Ctrl-S is so universal
> now for SAve.

Obviously. But there is SAve and there is SAve -- we've
mentioned at least five very different methods for saving in the
last few messages, and there are quite a few more not yet
mentioned. Whichever one you choose would logically be the one
you'd assign to Ctrl-S -- if indeed you elect to use Ctrl-S for
that purpose (I use key 74, which is NumPad-minus -- my Ctrl-S
"S"waps characters/words/sentences/paragraphs, e.g. "HB" becomes
"BH"). So, depending upon the assignment, it _is_ possible to
"hit ctrl-S to SAve" U2. Anything is possible.

> Note, however, that $MO is *not* moved
> from 0 to 1 by doing a single CC.

Huh? VA$MO indicates whether the file has been MOdified or not.
What does func CC have to do with anything? I'm trying to
determine whether a SAve is necessary ($MO=1) or not ($MO=0).
Why force a save if you don't need one? And if an external
program might have altered a file that XyWrite thinks hasn't
changed, what you want to do is RECAll to get the newest
version, not SAve the old one!

> Why the SUbroutine 01 when it is called only once?

Because a SUb refreshes the value of , which always holds
by default the text on the CMline when a program *starts* but
gets wiped out by a call to another frame (here, frame AF). The
SUb re-reads the CMline and stores it in S/G 05.

> Why not have an  before the first ?

Because I'm not ready to EXit yet!

> Is that to allow for having
> a zap26 call when the original window was [UNTITLED]?

Of course. That, plus I would still want to synchronize
multiple sessions, if pertinent.

> Is there any reason to use "in" vs. "contains" (238 vs. 240)?

In this particular test it is simpler, more succinct. Fewer
bytes. Faster.

> Are they exact inverses of each other?

I don't know what you mean. One (238) has the capability of
precisely testing containment position, the other (240) doesn't.
That's the basic difference. There are also considerable
similarities. These expressions yield identical results:

{greater_than}-1>
{240}"blap">

{240}"blap")>
{238}"blap"{less_than}0>

In both of those couplets, the second choice is the more
succinct, and that's the one we generally use -- you'll seldom
(maybe never) find an
{240}"something")> expression in U2 because it's a
prolix test of that proposition. We try to be pithy without
sacrificing complexity -- indeed, pithiness is required if you
indulge complexity, because XPL memory has real limits.

-----------------------------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------