Another help nit

[vefatica]

"b" isn't mentioned in the table of disk/memory size format flags. I know it's mentioned further on but it belongs in the table.

 

[rconn]

vefatica wrote:

> "b" isn't mentioned in the table of disk/memory size format flags. I know it's mentioned further on but it belongs in the table.

Since it's ignored (it equals a scale factor of 1) I don't know that
putting it in the table serves much purpose, but I'll add it to the list.

Rex Conn
JP Software

 

[vefatica]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:04:35 -0600, rconn <> wrote:

|---Quote---
|> "b" isn't mentioned in the table of disk/memory size format flags. I know it's mentioned further on but it belongs in the table.
|---End Quote---
|Since it's ignored (it equals a scale factor of 1) I don't know that
|putting it in the table serves much purpose, but I'll add it to the list.

It seems it **must** be present if you want @FILESIZE to give allocation in
bytes ... @FILESIZE[...,b,a].
--
- Vince

 

[vefatica]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:07:01 -0600, vefatica <> wrote:

||---Quote---
||> "b" isn't mentioned in the table of disk/memory size format flags. I know it's mentioned further on but it belongs in the table.
||---End Quote---
||Since it's ignored (it equals a scale factor of 1) I don't know that
||putting it in the table serves much purpose, but I'll add it to the list.
|
|It seems it **must** be present if you want @FILESIZE to give allocation in
|bytes ... @FILESIZE[...,b,a].

Perhaps you'd change things to allow @FILESIZE[file_spec,,a].
--
- Vince

 

[rconn]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:04:35 -0600, rconn <> wrote:

|---Quote---
|> "b" isn't mentioned in the table of disk/memory size format flags. I know it's mentioned further on but it belongs in the table.
|---End Quote---
|Since it's ignored (it equals a scale factor of 1) I don't know that
|putting it in the table serves much purpose, but I'll add it to the list.

It seems it **must** be present if you want @FILESIZE to give allocation in
bytes ... @FILESIZE[...,b,a].

That would certainly be true if it weren't that the allocation option was removed a couple of years ago (in order to support /S). I need to update the docs.

 

[vefatica]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:13:54 -0600, rconn <> wrote:

||It seems it **must** be present if you want @FILESIZE to give allocation in
||bytes ... @FILESIZE[...,b,a].
|
|That would certainly be true if it weren't that the allocation option was removed a couple of years ago (in order to support /S). I need to update the docs.

I don't see how they conflict, or even make life difficult for each other. My
(now abandoned) @DU[] had it right from the beginning ... whenever a filesize
was added to the byte total, a number of clusters was added to the cluster total
... a one-liner.

Anyway, if one were interested (as one might be) in the disk space used, bytes
allocated seems a must.
--
- Vince

 

[Steve Fabian]

rconn wrote:
| ---Quote (Originally by vefatica)---
| On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:04:35 -0600, rconn <> wrote:
|
|| ---Quote---
||| "b" isn't mentioned in the table of disk/memory size format flags.
||| I know it's mentioned further on but it belongs in the table.
|| ---End Quote---
|| Since it's ignored (it equals a scale factor of 1) I don't know that
|| putting it in the table serves much purpose, but I'll add it to the
|| list.
|
| It seems it **must** be present if you want @FILESIZE to give
| allocation in
| bytes ... @FILESIZE[...,b,a].
| ---End Quote---
|
| That would certainly be true if it weren't that the allocation option
| was removed a couple of years ago (in order to support /S). I need
| to update the docs.

The command

echo %@filesize[/s *,b,a] %@filesize[/s *]

indeed returned the same value twice, meaning that the parser accepted the
optional ,a parameter, but the code ignored it. Not up to your usual
standards...
--
Steve

 

[rconn]

Steve Fábián wrote:

> The command
>
> echo %@filesize[/s *,b,a] %@filesize[/s *]
>
> indeed returned the same value twice, meaning that the parser accepted the
> optional ,a parameter, but the code ignored it. Not up to your usual
> standards...

No, both the parser and the code ignored the "a". (Most of the variable
functions ignore any extraneous arguments.

Rex Conn
JP Software

 

[rconn]

vefatica wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:13:54 -0600, rconn <> wrote:
>
> ||It seems it **must** be present if you want @FILESIZE to give allocation in
> ||bytes ... @FILESIZE[...,b,a].
> |
> |That would certainly be true if it weren't that the allocation option was removed a couple of years ago (in order to support /S). I need to update the docs.
>
> I don't see how they conflict, or even make life difficult for each other. My
> (now abandoned) @DU[] had it right from the beginning ... whenever a filesize
> was added to the byte total, a number of clusters was added to the cluster total
> ... a one-liner.
>
> Anyway, if one were interested (as one might be) in the disk space used, bytes
> allocated seems a must.

If it was that critical, somebody should have noticed during the past
couple of years ...

Rex Conn
JP Software

 

[Steve Fabian]

rconn wrote:
| Most of the
| variable functions ignore any extraneous arguments.

Always learn something new...
--
Steve

 

[vefatica]

vefatica wrote:



If it was that critical, somebody should have noticed during the past
couple of years ...

It's becoming increasingly common for bugs and other unfortunate things to go undetected for a long time. There's an awful lot of stuff in TCC. When someone raises a question about some feature, others start playing with that feature and that feature's features come to light. That'll continue.

 

[vefatica]

It's becoming increasingly common for bugs and other unfortunate things to go undetected for a long time. There's an awful lot of stuff in TCC. When someone raises a question about some feature, others start playing with that feature and that feature's features come to light. That'll continue.

And it could very well be that folks continues using @FILESIZE[] with "a", thinking it was working since there was no indication that it wasn't!

 

[Steve Fabian]

vefatica wrote:
| And it could very well be that folks continues using @FILESIZE[] with
| "a", thinking it was working since there was no indication that it
| wasn't!

That's my fear as well. I have a UDF using ",bc,a".
--
Steve