Export field separator question

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:57:24PM -0400, John Esak wrote:
> > > > I wouldn't have considered that, since, clearly (:-), that means "use
> > > > as the field separator (the first character of the string in) field
> > > > 253".
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > >
> > > I agree with you... this is/has always been a vague inconsistency in
> > > filePro.  At least, it is not intuitive since things like \r
> > will work here
> > > as well... Using just literal numbers (especially up to 3 of
> > them) usually
> > > means the contents of that field to filePro. Score 1 for you... :-)
> >
> > Well, if you had to put the "\n" in quotes, I might agree.  However, since
> > the parameters to export flags are literal values, "f=253"
> > doesn't refer to
> > field 253 any more than "f=x" refers to field x.
> 
> Hey... okay!!!  Too bad, now we have -1 Jay.
> 
> :-)

No, John, you were right; I was right.  :-)

This is an example of the thing I like to grump about about the
adhocracy of the syntax in filePro.  My assertion was perfectly
reasonable: a literal number *anywhere else in filePro* (well, except
in i=9) is now a field reference, even as an argument to a function
(I'm told that was the 'PacMan' flag day :-).

Except here.

My inference isn't unreasonable at all.  It's just wrong.

That's just wrong.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	"You know: I'm a fan of photosynthesis as much as the next guy,
	but if God merely wanted us to smell the flowers, he wouldn't 
	have invented a 3GHz microprocessor and a 3D graphics board."
					-- Luke Girardi