|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: were all programmers
Almost all, Jörgen, almost...
|
|
|
|
|
True, I understand some are managers.
|
|
|
|
|
I still am in development & I'd be using my editor (VSCode, where you just click on the 'line ending' item in the status bar and choose LF or CRLF...)
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
Just use Excel. Load the file and re-save it. That should work unless Outlook is fussy about quoted strings - Excel always quotes strings in CSVs even if the original Griff string was unquoted and unchanged.
Anyway, glad to hear that you are on the mend, albeit slowly. Take it carefully.
|
|
|
|
|
I would gladly go back...
The eighties were awesome, totally!
Big hair, parachute pants, Walkman's... etc.
Hacking out basic code on a Radio Shack Color Computer (CoCo), and Apple IIe
Life was good... you could shake people's hands, hug a friend, go to the movies.
Remember, no matter where you go... there you are.
|
|
|
|
|
littleGreenDude wrote: go to the movies.
Hmmm ...
National Lampoon's European Vacation
Police Academy
Look Who's Talking
Red Sonja
K-9
Superman IV
Mommie Dearest
Howard the ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) ing Duck.
Weird Science
E.T.
Trading Places
The Money Pit
...
OK, you also had Gremlins, Ghostbusters, and the Terminator, but ... you need very rose tinted glasses to watch most of 'em now! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I guess that you are talking about going back to your youth carrying with you the 30-40 years of experience you have gained since. If you could go back to your youthful body and old-style surroundings, it would be something very different: it wouldn't be experiencing the insecurities and doubts and conflicts and whathaveyou, but an old man's view upon the world.
That is what I could see as something desirable. But I never wanted to go back to my old mind, erasing all the experience I have gained. I never wanted to be a small kid again. Not a grown kid. Not a youth, nor a young adult, nor a middle aged man. I am happy that I am through with all those conflicts and demands and problems. It is much more satisfying leaning aback and relaxing with what I have gained.
|
|
|
|
|
While I essentially agree, why blame Microsoft rather than Google? They're actually equally to blame, but Google erred first.
Besides, saying that the line terminator is \r\n is still imprecise; a line begins with \n and ends with \r .
Get everything from the \n to the \r and you know you have a full and complete line; if not, you may have an incomplete line.
(Of course, you also have to honor quotes and escapes.)
Well, that and that it should be \n\r , but that's a different issue.
Would you also like to argue the issues involved in the lack of a proper CSV standard? Just five minutes? Or the full half hour?
Oh, wait, I also need to mention the superiority of the OpenVMS' file system...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree that Google are wrong as well, they should be letting the system take care of EOL - but "modern" software reading line based information from a text file shouldn't care a damn what the line separator is - the system will code (and normally with pretty much anything). You actually have to work hard to decide it isn't exactly what you want and add an error to specifically tell the user that, but then leave out saying what the problem is!
We've had PC's for nearly half a century now. This kind of crap is just unacceptable in professional software, like failing to check numeric inputs and assuming the user didn't hit a wrong key ... It's like a car designer putting the fuel tank so that the filler neck snapped in a rear end collision (Ford Pinto, 1970-80) in this century. He'd be vilified today!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: professional software
I thought we were discussing Microsoft and Google?
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Besides, saying that the line terminator is \r\n is still imprecise; a line begins with \n and ends with \r .
Actually, the ISO standard 646, and its followers that include ISO 646 as a subset, defines CR and LF as completely orthogonal functions. LF advances the vertical position by one line, explicitly stating that the horizontal position is not affected. CR sets the horizontal position back to the start of the line, explictly stating that the vertical position is not affected.
So from an ISO 646 point of view, CR LF and LF CR are equally valid. Also valid is making two blank lines before the following text as [preceeding text]LF LF LF CR[following text].
What gets you to the beginning of a line is the CR. So it would be more correct to say that CR starts the line. If your file contains xxx<lf>yyy<lf>zzz, it would look like
xxx
yyy
zzz, by the ISO standard. Note that nothing is printed before the yyy and zzz, there are no spaces overwriting previous output, just a change of vertical position.
xxx[CR]yyy[CR]zzz would display xxx, yyy and zzz on top of each other. (Whether it appears as a real overprint or as a replacement depends on the physical presentation device.) Whether you call that one line or three lines on top of each other is a matter of definition.
|
|
|
|
|
The export was done by Google Contacts (I'm assuming) on Windows, targeting very specifically a Windows app (Outlook), and it doesn't respect the standard CR/LF pair that's ubiquitous on Windows. Who's to blame for that one?
|
|
|
|
|
I usually read Dilbert[^] each morning. As is not uncommon in such cartoons, there is a flavor of current events and politics.
These last two (May 12 & 13, 2020) are introduce a new type of character, a Scienesplainer. Basically, his purpose and what he says are ridiculed. On the face of it, yeah - sure.
But - let's look into reality - and this is obviously targeting Covid19 and variations on data interpretation, PR, and such. Unfortunately, the job for this character, which is being mocked, is far too necessary. It seems every damn day people keep doing what they always do, which is, simply put, far too many people are ready to listen and learn as long it's what they want to hear and believe.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theories and name calling are substituting for common sense, reason, and the ing evidence in front of their own eyes. Scott Adams has often used his platform (and it is his right) to undermine common sense to bolster his political views.
So - before I slip into soapbox territory, I'll offer a rhetorical question: "Were people always this stupid or has the gene pool utterly failed?"
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Always.
We just have better tools today.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: better tools
I don't know if your mastery of English is at the level of realizing the pun you made by your choice of words (double entendre).
One can refer to a person as "a real tool" and it's not a description that implies a sharp edge.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Were people always this stupid or has the gene pool utterly failed?
Chlorine. We need lots of Chlorine in the gene pool.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, more and more of the population seems to have been spawned in the shallow end of the gene pool.OriginalGriff wrote: We need lots of Chlorine in the gene pool
Hmmm. I'll defer to you expertise, but I have always leaned in favor of boiling.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Two things:
1. Stupidity is often inherited (either by genes or teachings)
2. Stupid people breed faster than intelligent people
Result: Stupid is winning... and it ain't slowing down!
(it also helps that social media brings stupid right to your front door now)
|
|
|
|
|
But they also tend to die faster, so in the best of worlds it would balance out.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: But they also tend to die faster, so in the best of worlds it would balance out.
I have to disagree with you on this point.
So long as they live long enough to breed they keep increasing. Like any parasite, if they kill the host after releasing the next generation it doesn't matter much. If they kill the host before then they become extinct.
Balance out? Ha! Hogwash!
And most of all, remember: There's no cure for stupid.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Which part is it you disagree with? That they also tend to die faster or that in the best of worlds it would balance out?
I take it that you're not a believer in Darwin.
Or would you say the stupid are better adapted? 
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, my reply is very much Darwin-ish.
They don't have to live a long time to succeed in swamping the population - just long enough to reproduce. Unlike the brighter amongst us, they don't gain any advantage in passing down their knowledge to future generations - it is thus, as it turns out, an advantage for them to die off soon after reproduction and thus freeing up resources for the next generation.
Because that is indeed what they do, reproduce early and often, they have nothing to lose by not shriveling to a ripe old age in terms of natural selection.
Adaption for survival and intelligent are not closely linked - think in terms of vermin: prolific, abundant, and not that smart. Think even more so, about shellfish. It's not that far a step down from there to morons that are part of universal suffrage in most western countries.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: They don't have to live a long time to succeed in swamping the population - just long enough to reproduce
No, traditionally they need to live long enough to make sure their offspring survives to adult age.
Which of course might not be true today.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
