Re: All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx ()
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:04:24 +0000 (UTC)
In article <5f2l849u1mjm8b5aguavl6gjpluiuftn39@xxxxxxx>,
Robert <no@xxxxxx> wrote:
On 25 Jul 2008 15:42:42 GMT, billg999@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
[snip]
Windows still supports FAT and FAT had two differnt kinds of text files.
One delimited by size and one that ended upon the reaching a ^Z. There
was no way I am aware of to determine which method a file used without
examining the file. This caused a lot of headaches for people writing
file transfer software as using the wrong method usually reulted in
garbage on the end of the file.
1A ceased marking end of file with MSDOS 2.0, 25 years ago. Ctrl-Z now
means Undo under
Windows and Suspend Task under Unix.
Mr Wagner, here's a little experiment you might want to try on a Windows
machine:
Start ==> Run ==> cmd
copy con hexfile
this is a test <== press Enter key
^Z <== control-Z
.... and see how Windows handles what you assert is an Undo.
DD
.
- References:
- All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
- From: taoxianfeng
- Re: All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
- From: Robert
- Re: All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
- From: Bill Gunshannon
- Re: All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
- From: Robert
- All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
- Prev by Date: Re: Cobol's File System Vs. RDBMs...
- Next by Date: Re: Cobol's File System Vs. RDBMs...
- Previous by thread: Re: All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
- Next by thread: Re: All X'0D' lost during reading line sequential file using microfocus se
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|