A REXX question - OS2

This is a discussion on A REXX question - OS2 ; In a REXX script, given a text variable the contents of which I wish to load into a disk datafile how, if it is possible at all, can I do that in one operation? I don't want to transfer one ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: A REXX question

  1. A REXX question

    In a REXX script, given a text variable the contents of which I wish to load
    into a disk datafile how, if it is possible at all, can I do that in one
    operation? I don't want to transfer one line at a time.

    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


    Proved yet again -- How to convince others that you are tolerant and
    nonviolent: throw grenades and firebombs, blow up schoolbusses and
    pizzerias, burn buildings, decapitate those you can't convince, and in
    general, exhibit your narrow-minded bloodthirstiness for all to see -- and
    tell them you're doing it for God.


  2. Re: A REXX question

    In article ,
    "Stan Goodman" wrote:
    >In a REXX script, given a text variable the contents of which I wish to load
    >into a disk datafile how, if it is possible at all, can I do that in one
    >operation? I don't want to transfer one line at a time.


    CHAROUT function:

    text_variable = 'This is a very long block of text.'
    call charout 'TEXT.FILE', text_variable

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    Proved yet again -- How to convince others that you are tolerant and
    nonviolent: Blow several innocent families to pieces in their beds while
    trying to hit an alleged rocket launcher several hundred yards away.

  3. Re: A REXX question

    On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:14:02 UTC, black.hole.4.spam@gmail.com (Don Hills)
    opined:
    > In article ,
    > "Stan Goodman" wrote:
    > >In a REXX script, given a text variable the contents of which I wish to load
    > >into a disk datafile how, if it is possible at all, can I do that in one
    > >operation? I don't want to transfer one line at a time.

    >
    > CHAROUT function:
    >
    > text_variable = 'This is a very long block of text.'
    > call charout 'TEXT.FILE', text_variable


    Much simpler than I thought. Thank you.

    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


    Proved yet again -- How to convince others that you are tolerant and
    nonviolent: throw grenades and firebombs, blow up schoolbusses and
    pizzerias, burn buildings, decapitate those you can't convince, and in
    general, exhibit your narrow-minded bloodthirstiness for all to see -- and
    tell them you're doing it for God.


  4. Re: A REXX question

    in 225936 20061111 172129 "Stan Goodman" wrote:
    >On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:14:02 UTC, black.hole.4.spam@gmail.com (Don Hills)
    >opined:
    >> In article ,
    >> "Stan Goodman" wrote:
    >> >In a REXX script, given a text variable the contents of which I wish to load
    >> >into a disk datafile how, if it is possible at all, can I do that in one
    >> >operation? I don't want to transfer one line at a time.

    >>
    >> CHAROUT function:
    >>
    >> text_variable = 'This is a very long block of text.'
    >> call charout 'TEXT.FILE', text_variable

    >
    >Much simpler than I thought. Thank you.


    Pity you didn't also take Don's final paragraph on board.
    Your propaganda has no place here.

  5. Re: A REXX question

    In , on 11/11/2006
    at 07:19 AM, "Stan Goodman" said:

    >In a REXX script, given a text variable the contents of which I wish
    >to load into a disk datafile how, if it is possible at all, can I do
    >that in one operation?


    Use charout, or see the STREAM class if you're using OREXX.

    --
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

    Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
    right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
    domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
    reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org


  6. Re: A REXX question

    On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 23:11:23 UTC, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
    opined:
    > In , on 11/11/2006
    > at 07:19 AM, "Stan Goodman" said:
    >
    > >In a REXX script, given a text variable the contents of which I wish
    > >to load into a disk datafile how, if it is possible at all, can I do
    > >that in one operation?

    >
    > Use charout, or see the STREAM class if you're using OREXX.


    Thanks, Shmuel. I don't know why this looked complicated to me. But the
    "problem" is solved.

    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


    Proved yet again -- How to convince others that you are tolerant and
    nonviolent: throw grenades and firebombs, blow up schoolbusses and
    pizzerias, burn buildings, decapitate those you can't convince, and in
    general, exhibit your narrow-minded bloodthirstiness for all to see -- and
    tell them you're doing it for God.


  7. Re: A REXX question

    On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:06:01 UTC, Bob Martin opined:
    > in 225936 20061111 172129 "Stan Goodman" wrote:
    > >On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:14:02 UTC, black.hole.4.spam@gmail.com (Don Hills)
    > >opined:
    > >> In article ,
    > >> "Stan Goodman" wrote:
    > >> >In a REXX script, given a text variable the contents of which I wish to load
    > >> >into a disk datafile how, if it is possible at all, can I do that in one
    > >> >operation? I don't want to transfer one line at a time.
    > >>
    > >> CHAROUT function:
    > >>
    > >> text_variable = 'This is a very long block of text.'
    > >> call charout 'TEXT.FILE', text_variable

    > >
    > >Much simpler than I thought. Thank you.

    >
    > Pity you didn't also take Don's final paragraph on board.
    > Your propaganda has no place here.


    I tried to write to you after your previous posting to this effect, but your
    server bounced my message; I'm sorry therefore to have to post a response
    here.

    Firstly, it seems to be well established that taglines need not be on-topic
    (which you mentioned before); others have taglines similarly unconnected
    with the topic of groups, often connected with religion, to which I do not
    subscribe, yet I make no complaint. People write in taglines whatever is on
    their minds.

    Secondly, the tagline is not propaganda, nor is there anything untrue in it.
    If you can point out any part of it which is false (things that never
    happened, or which I describe falsely), I will cheerfully remove it with
    thanks for your help. It is entirely possible that what is written in it is
    a surprise to someone that doesn't read newspapers or have a reliable news
    source, but there is nothing in the tagline that has not been reported in
    detail in reputable news sources.

    If anyone is in favor of the acts described in the tagline, that is another
    matter. I would be willing to debate the morality (on or off the group) of
    e.g. public decapitation of journalists in response to a cartoon, or blowing
    up school busses.

    What Don's final paragraph says is that, because tragic accidents happen in
    war, it is forbidden for a defending party to defend itself. He has also
    maintained that, if a terror organization intentionally sites itself among
    civilians, women and children, it is immune from counter-attack (although
    the vaunted Geneva Convention says precisely the opposite). I argued these
    points with him off-group for a time, but failed to convince him; possibly
    that is because of the geographical isolation of Australia, which makes it
    unlikely for that country ever to find itself in the situation of mine,. One
    supposes that the Aborigines are not about to initiate a terror campaign.
    I thought it best to let his jibe pass, but if anyone wishes to debate it
    with me, I suggest doing so off the group (for a limited time, as I have
    other fish to fry, like most people). If anyone wishes to do that, tell me
    how to give you an email address to reach me.

    --
    Stan Goodman
    Qiryat Tiv'on
    Israel


    Proved yet again -- How to convince others that you are tolerant and
    nonviolent: throw grenades and firebombs, blow up schoolbusses and
    pizzerias, burn buildings, decapitate those you can't convince, and in
    general, exhibit your narrow-minded bloodthirstiness for all to see -- and
    tell them you're doing it for God.


  8. Re: A REXX question

    On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:55:33 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    wrote:

    > Firstly, it seems to be well established that taglines need not be on-topic


    There is a convention that the signature block, in total, be no more
    than four lines.
    --
    Bob Eager



  9. Re: A REXX question

    On 12 Nov 2006 12:05:16 GMT, Stan Goodman wrote:

    > The IDF fires to launching areas, in an effort to suppress the constant
    > bombardment of villages like Sderot and a number of kibbutzim near the Gaza
    > fence.....


    How many times do you need telling? Take this **** out of here. I do NOT
    want to read it, OK?
    That goes for your pointless sig. as well.

  10. Re: A REXX question

    Bob Eager wrote:
    > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:55:33 UTC, "Stan Goodman"
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Firstly, it seems to be well established that taglines need not be on-topic

    >
    > There is a convention that the signature block, in total, be no more
    > than four lines.


    And what we've seen here is the reason why off-topic signatures
    (especially emotionally charged ones like Stan's) are really frowned
    upon. They open up a forum for discussion of the subject they contain
    in places where it is not appropriate. "You posted it publicly, so I
    will address it publically..."

    I'm all for people having their own opinions, but lets try to keep the
    opinions expressed here related to OS/2. Stan, please reconsider your
    use of your signature here.

    --
    [Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply.]

  11. Re: A REXX question

    On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:52:00 -0800, Marty wrote:
    >>>Firstly, it seems to be well established that taglines need not be on-topic

    >>
    >> There is a convention that the signature block, in total, be no more
    >> than four lines.


    Six lines is the convention as I've heard it.


    > And what we've seen here is the reason why off-topic signatures
    > (especially emotionally charged ones like Stan's) are really frowned
    > upon. They open up a forum for discussion of the subject they contain
    > in places where it is not appropriate. "You posted it publicly, so I
    > will address it publically..."
    >
    > I'm all for people having their own opinions, but lets try to keep the
    > opinions expressed here related to OS/2. Stan, please reconsider your
    > use of your signature here.


    A few years ago, I told another poster here: "I may not like your habit
    of posting politically provocative taglines, but I recognize your right to
    do so." (Paraphrased from memory.) This remains my position.

    Stan is perfectly within his rights - as is Don, for that matter - to post
    whatever he likes in his signature, at least as long as it doesn't
    contravene commonly-accepted standards against obscene language, slander,
    hate speech, personal attacks, or whatever.

    The one who actually crossed the line was the poster who directly
    addressed the subject in his message (in a particularly insulting
    fashion, IMO).

    This will be my only post on the subject at this time.
    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex

    Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).

  12. Re: A REXX question

    [This will be my last response on this topic to reduce the noise that
    I'm complaining about.] ;-)

    Alex Taylor wrote:
    > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:52:00 -0800, Marty wrote:
    >
    >>>>Firstly, it seems to be well established that taglines need not be on-topic
    >>>
    >>>There is a convention that the signature block, in total, be no more
    >>>than four lines.

    >
    > Six lines is the convention as I've heard it.
    >
    >>And what we've seen here is the reason why off-topic signatures
    >>(especially emotionally charged ones like Stan's) are really frowned
    >>upon. They open up a forum for discussion of the subject they contain
    >>in places where it is not appropriate. "You posted it publicly, so I
    >>will address it publically..."
    >>
    >>I'm all for people having their own opinions, but lets try to keep the
    >>opinions expressed here related to OS/2. Stan, please reconsider your
    >>use of your signature here.

    >
    > A few years ago, I told another poster here: "I may not like your habit
    > of posting politically provocative taglines, but I recognize your right to
    > do so." (Paraphrased from memory.) This remains my position.
    >
    > Stan is perfectly within his rights - as is Don, for that matter - to post
    > whatever he likes in his signature, at least as long as it doesn't
    > contravene commonly-accepted standards against obscene language, slander,
    > hate speech, personal attacks, or whatever.


    I have no problem with Stan expressing himself and he has the right to
    do so. A troll also has the right to post his/her opinions and be
    generally disruptive. (Note: I'm NOT equating Stan with a troll).
    It's not a question of the freedom to do so. As it is with many similar
    issues, it is an issue of courtesy. In this case I'll grant that it is
    not even directly rude to have such a tag-line, but as I said before, it
    encourages discussions which are not generally welcome here.

    > The one who actually crossed the line was the poster who directly
    > addressed the subject in his message (in a particularly insulting
    > fashion, IMO).
    >
    > This will be my only post on the subject at this time.


    I can respect your opinion, but I don't agree. Stan opened up the forum
    for the discussion with his tag line.

    Having said my peace I'll stop adding to the noise.

    --
    [Reverse the parts of the e-mail address to reply.]

  13. Re: A REXX question

    Here in comp.os.os2.misc,
    Alex Taylor spake unto us, saying:

    >On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:52:00 -0800, Marty wrote:


    >>>>Firstly, it seems to be well established that taglines need not be
    >>>>on-topic
    >>>
    >>> There is a convention that the signature block, in total, be no more
    >>> than four lines.

    >
    >Six lines is the convention as I've heard it.


    Common accepted convention according to discussions I've seen recently
    on news.software.readers is four (4) lines of signature max, not
    including the dash-dash-space delimiter line, and there is some
    documentation to back it up, of which I will provide a few selected
    examples:

    http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html
    http://www.cybernothing.org/cno/docs/rfc1855.html
    http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html

    Of course, it's a convention, not a formal standard. :-)

    >A few years ago, I told another poster here: "I may not like your habit
    >of posting politically provocative taglines, but I recognize your right
    >to do so." (Paraphrased from memory.) This remains my position.


    I agree with this myself. If someone's tagline really bothers you to
    the point where you can't deal with it, killfile them. Problem solved.

    --
    -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
    Mainframe/Unix bit twiddler by day, OS/2+Linux+DOS hobbyist by night.
    WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

  14. Re: A REXX question

    In <4558fa38$0$33357$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, on 11/13/2006
    at 05:07 PM, Alex Taylor said:

    >Six lines is the convention as I've heard it.


    McQuarry is 4 lines following the dash dash space line. I'm not aware
    of any RFC mandating it.

    --
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

    Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
    right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
    domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
    reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org


+ Reply to Thread