Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)
|mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login|
Posted: 20 Days 13 Hours ago by: solitary....@gmail.cThe first level subscript is work order and the second level is category. The first batch worked as expected. Then the next work order looked like the previous work order plus some control characters and maybe something more. I pattern m
Posted: 20 Days 14 Hours ago by: Janis PapanagnouI'm not sure that would suffice; we'd need to see the whole code to judge. (Ideally in a reduced version.) You can also print the _type information_ of the array indices and components at every occurrence to track or easier find out where
Posted: 20 Days 16 Hours ago by: solitary....@gmail.cThanks for the lesson. Didn't realize that sub1, sub2 resulted in a single subscript. I changed all to [sub1][sub2] and got the same error. But it printed only a small portion of what it printed before. Odd. Steve
Posted: 20 Days 16 Hours ago by: solitary....@gmail.cA smaller example would have been preferable. Agreed. Steve
Posted: 20 Days 17 Hours ago by: Janis PapanagnouYou seem to intend using true multidimensional arrays (a[x][y]), but in your code I see awk's old style array emulations (a[x,y]), like ss[num, title] " " $0 The indices 'num' and 'title' compose to a single associative key concatenat
Posted: 20 Days 17 Hours ago by: Ed MortonPlease reduce your code to a minimal example that demonstrates the problem and provide concise, testable sample input and expected output so it's easiest for us to help you. Ed.
Posted: 20 Days 17 Hours ago by: solitary....@gmail.cI'm trying to parse a 2-dimensional array and I'm getting the message "fatal: asorti: first argument not an array;" on the line "n2 = asorti(ss[sub1],sortedSS2);". ss is the original 2-dimensional array. Not sure why it thinks that ss[
Posted: 24 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mack The KnifeThis likely would never happen in gawk anyway, as it goes against the spirit of Free Software. So then all is good. :-) There are other ways to accomplilsh that goal, anyway, they're just not so straightforward.
Posted: 25 Days 12 Hours ago by: J Namanre: "tell us what it is about tawk that you can't do in gawk" Not to beat a dead fish, but I always used TAWK to "compile" awk programs so end-users would not hack them. Obviously the "compiler" was a wrapper for the TAWK interpreter. I a
Posted: 26 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mack The KnifeThis makes the most sense. It was an interesting and powerful program at the time, and interesting code is usually worth reading to learn from. (Even the gawk maintainer has revived old Unix code to make it more easily available for readi
Posted: 26 Days 13 Hours ago by: Ed MortonI was really hoping you'd tell us what it is about tawk that you can't do in gawk (or some other awk or using some other tool) that makes it worth resurrecting tawk and adding yet another awk variant to the already too-large pool of av
Posted: 26 Days 13 Hours ago by: Kaz KylhekuSomeone replying to 8 year old posts probably deserves at least a heads-up, though. Next time I will just do that without the don't-do-that.
Posted: 26 Days 14 Hours ago by: Jeff ParanichNot unfounded comments - but also perhaps for all the same reasons these arguments can justify why TAWK should be open source now, in the name of preservation if nothing else. I agree, nobody is going to take the source and run with it as
Posted: 26 Days 15 Hours ago by: Kaz KylhekuWhy would silly become me, when it can just wait for me to become it?
Posted: 26 Days 16 Hours ago by: Ed MortonNot trying to be facetious, I just seriously want to know - 1) Why try to keep using tawk instead of just using gawk or switching to some other tool that's currently still being actively developed, supported, and documented? 2) If taw
Posted: 26 Days 16 Hours ago by: Kenny McCormackDon't be silly. It does not become you. -- In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue.
Posted: 26 Days 16 Hours ago by: Kenny McCormack+1 (!) In particular, a Linux version should be the real target. Note that there always was a Solaris version (in addition to all the various DOS/Windows versions), so it is not like creating a Unix version would be a "de novo" effort.
Posted: 26 Days 16 Hours ago by: Kaz Kylheku^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please avoid necroposting, without an amunt of justification proportional to the "years old" parameter.
Posted: 26 Days 17 Hours ago by: BenMaybe he or she is talking about the IPA characters?
Posted: 26 Days 18 Hours ago by: Keith ThompsonNo. Unicode just specifies an integer value for each character. The highest allocated value is 0x10FFFD, which fits in 21 bits. There are several *representations* of Unicode. The most common is UTF-8, which can encode all Unicode cha
Posted: 26 Days 18 Hours ago by: Jeff ParanichI know TAWK was a commercial product, many years ago. What's it going to take to get the source code public? It sounds like TAWK is at extreme risk of being lost forever as your post is now 6 years old without even a new closed-source
Posted: 26 Days 23 Hours ago by: Digioh this is cool! i really not specialist about unicode. i know about it just a few things: single character may have up to 15 bytes of code in theory - unicode may implement ANY KIND of language including speach and writes there is som
22 recent articles found.