Mark McIntyre wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:09:04 -0400, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer
> <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>No, you misinterpret my comment. The point is that PDF searches
>>can only be done by a PDF reader. With text you have a choice,
>>such as grep, a text editor, or any other piece of text handling
>>software on your system. So you can suit your search methods to
>>software familiar to you.
>
> Why would anyone under the age of 30 be familiar with arcane stuff
> like grep?

People who read C Standards are not likely to be a "Joe" user,
notwithstanding their age.

<snip>

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes:

> $)CHarald van D)&k wrote:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I can tell, it has not yet been established that, for
>>> example, n1256.pdf contains any incorrect spellings.
>>
>> From n869.txt, from the foreword:
>> -- __func__ predefined identifier
>>
>> From n1256.pdf:
>> â
€
� _ _func_ _
predeï¬
identiï¬

Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:38:50 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , $)CHarald
> van D)&k <truedfx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The problem with the spellings in this thread was that you can't search
> >for __func__ and find where it's referenced. (Or more accurately, that
> >you can't search for __FUNCTION__ to find that it's not referenced.)
>
> Perhaps not - but you can search for UNCTI, which is highly likely to
> be unique.

Or you could - perhaps? revolutionary idea, I know - check the index.
I know that this is the C Standard we're talking about, not the Perl...
erm... lack of any standard, but there _is_ more than one way to do it.

Richard

Mark McIntyre wrote:

>>>On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:00:37 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Ernie Wright
>>><erniew@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's not clear to me what you mean by "instrinsic" here.

Geez, I just noticed that I typed that extraneous 's' twice in two
different posts.

> Sorry, but I pretty much assumed my audience could read english. Not
> trying to be offensive, but I have no intention of defining what an
> intrinsic property is.

That's OK. We can come back to this if need be.

>> http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/images/pdfsearch.gif
>
> *shrug*
> Probably there's an embedded n-dash sized space in "angle".

It's a bug in the Acrobat browser plug-in. Both Acrobat Pro and the
plug-in, when it's working correctly, find 80 occurrences of "angle" in
the document, including several embedded in words like "triangle."

In my experience, this kind of flakiness with PDF isn't that unusual.
If the result of a search is important, and I have both PDF and ASCII
text versions of a document, and the search result is negative in the
PDF version, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to repeat the search
using the ASCII version in a text editor.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes:
>
.... snip ...
>
>> The blanks between '_' chars are an effect of the font used. The
>> other anomaly is due to the use of some peculiar character to
>> represent the sequence 'fi'. So there are no incorrect spelling
>> identified, but one more of the penalties of .PDF publication is
>> exposed.
>
> I disagree. From what I can see the "_ _" problem *is* a case of
> incorrect spelling (but a well-intentioned one). It seems to have
> been put in deliberately to make the double underscore obvious.
> The "fi" ligature is simply correct and good quality PDF readers
> will cut and paste it as "fi" (two characters) and match it in a
> search for "f" followed by "i". In other words, it works just
> fine.
>
> I don't think either says anything about the penalty of PDF
> publication. In fact for interactive (i.e. non scripted) searches
> I like the PDF better, now. I can search for text, jump to
> specific pages or go right to a given section just by typing any
> part of the section number or name.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. My main point was that with
text you have no problem selecting the search software to suit your
tastes and needs.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 06:14:22 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

>Or you could - perhaps? revolutionary idea, I know - check the index.

Typically, an index doesn't index every single word!

A - see pages 2-1200 inclusive.
But - see pages 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,14,16,....
for - see pages 2-1200 except 1104 and 896

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 06:14:22 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
> rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
>
> >Or you could - perhaps? revolutionary idea, I know - check the index.
>
> Typically, an index doesn't index every single word!
>
> A - see pages 2-1200 inclusive.
> But - see pages 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,14,16,....
> for - see pages 2-1200 except 1104 and 896

Typically, one doesn't search for indefinite articles or coordinating
conjunctions. One searches for important nouns - precisely the ones that
are found in a good index. In this case, __func__ is in the index, while
__FUNCTION__ is not; one look at this index at the start of this whole
useless argument about PDF versus text versus underscores versus
identifiers would have settled the matter.

Richard

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:26:20 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

>In this case, __func__ is in the index, while
>__FUNCTION__ is not; one look at this index at the start of this whole
>useless argument about PDF versus text versus underscores versus
>identifiers would have settled the matter.

I agree, but I think the point being made is that indices do not index
everything, and can thus only tell what _is_ in the book.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan