printer file "name" - problem RESOLVED!!!!!

[John Esak]

Brian,

Before I handle you in procmail... since you want to belabor your asinine
post to me regarding how to read and send emails on this list... (what a
real jerk you are... I was using email when you were 6 years old and
probably still wetting your bed.)

This is EXACTLY the message I was responding to... which prompted my very
straightforward prolog about being confused as to whether the comments seen
were from you or Dennis Malen.  I know you think you are the master of all,
and so I dare you to please expose to me and the rest of the list how
precisely I was to tell from the below post WHICH CAME DIRECTLY FROM YOU,
who was making the comments?  And you have the audacity to tell me how to
post messages. As I said, procmail can deal with your crap from now on, so
don't bother really answering the question. Just realize and see by this
"proof" that you went postal and ultra passionate with venom and vitriol
over _your_ own blunder... even after I gently tried to deal with it in my
message. I will NOT deal with your garbage anymore. You are nearly always
part of every hassle on this list, and as with this one, you start a high
percentage of them. I will make my procmail rules available to anyone else
who wants to eliminate your constant effrontery from their email as well.

The message below is an EXACT copy of the message I first responded to in
this thread. So, either you decided to sign your name to a bunch of things
Dennis wrote, or it's you that needs to brush up on how to post messages.
Reading along and hearing you refer to Dennis but showing no quoted text
prompted my note... and it, by the way was civil, not offensive in any way
and putting no one in their place as you suggest... it was merely stating
that PUTENV works exactly as advertised and _that_ was exactly the
*clarification* Dennis was asking for... OR WAS IT YOU? I could care less
now, really...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Malen" <dmalen at malen.com>
To: "Kenneth Brody" <kenbrody at bestweb.net>
Cc: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: printer file "name" - problem RESOLVED!!!!!

I'm still waiting for some sort of response to what I pointed out.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a bug that putenv PFONEHEAD works.
I quoted Ken stating clearly that variables that control fp's behaviour do
not affect a currently running instance of clerk/report when you use putenv
in processing.

Is it a change with some version of fp that means above is no longer true,
or is it a difference between clerk & report? or is it a fluke that some
variables work and some don't ? Or is it a bug that will get fixed in some
future release now that we have uncovered it?

Do I have to perform a test on every variable just so I can document the
behaviour of them all instead of counting on a rule?

I think it's wrong to allow it to continue since look what happens? Dennis
is doing this all wrong, but, since as far as he can see "it works", he's
not even considering fixing it, and so when the bug is fixed, his code
breaks, yadda yadda.

And there is reason to for the behaviour to be like I'm claiming it's
supposed to be. It's only "working" for Dennis in this one particular case.
It's really "wrong" and gets in the way in other cases where you are writing
code, depending on certain behaviour. It could be a lot worse than some
unsightly output. The variable in question could just as easily be one that
changes what data gets collected in the report and ends up causing a report
to be wrong through no fault of the programmers. Suppose it was PFSKIPLOCKED
or PFMBTO or PFREADONLY and I was in a report that runs other reports and it
was critical that no records get skipped nor used when being updated in the
top level report but it was ok to skip some in the sub/child reports? I
would set one of those variables with putenv secure in the knowledge that
they can only possibly affect the reports run in the system commands and not
the top level report I'm running in right now.

It's equally OK if it works like we proved PFONEHEAD works, as long as ALL
behaviour modifying variables work the same way and it's documented and it
doesn't change and as new variables are added they all stick to the same
plan.

Brian K. White  --  brian at aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx  Linux SCO  Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD  #callahans Satriani

_______________________________________________
Filepro-list mailing list
Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list