MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: FUP vs. fileio
At 05:52 AM 2/22/97 PST, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Okay, comments from the newbie here, but oh well. I just thought I'd
>say that I much prefer FUP's ability to input binary characters in
> I don't use it a great deal, but when I do, I generally make sure I
>know what I'm doing, so as to not corrupt the database as
>mentioned before. (this is fairly hard to do accidentally, isn't it?
>seems like it)
> It's also fairly useful for when you /need/ binary characters, for
>example, when installing ANSI. (It refers to a chr() patch that you
>can get, as an alternative... anyone know where this can be
Well ANSI 2.2 didn't need any of that anymore, but Dark Owl's development
copy got trashed (or so he said) and he's not planning on working on it soon.
You can get chr() at
however this was a patch made for 1.7.8, although you can just copy the
code and put it in your extensions.c. I converted it to 1.8 extension
format to put in my patch archive but it isn't up yet.
> I dunno about the rest of you, but the MOO's form of binary
>strings just don't cut it for me. :) Now, if only binary strings
>could be displayed as binary without having to set the whole
>connection binary. (ick)
well the reason this wasn't done was because people would put binary
characters all over the place, and some people can't even see those
characters, and they don't look the same in different fonts, etc. Also some
people will take great delight in ANSI-bombing raw telneters...
For example, not everyone sees these characters the same way: © ã ö
In the windows font I'm using that comes out as a copyright symbol, an a
with a tilde over it, and a o with an umlaut over it. but it's not the same
on other systems, so using high-bit characters isn't a good idea.
>Anyway, that's just my comment on the matter. :)
Well, these are just my comments. Have a nice day (insert annoying smiley
Subject Index |