HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: imc@comlab.ox.ac.uk (Ian Collier)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: Spelt logical operators
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:26:55 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Laboratory
X-Local-Date: Tuesday, 15th December 1992 at 2:26pm GMT
Originator: imc@msc8.comlab

In article <1garqeINNdt4@oak9.doc.ic.ac.uk>, ppch@doc.ic.ac.uk (P P C Herring) wrote:
>Has anyone ever suggested that Rexx implement the logical operators in words as
>well as in symbols? 

>I mean:                  if not A or (B and C) then ... 
>as an alternative to:    if \A | (B & C) then ...        
>which suffers from using characters that keyboard manufacturers and operating 
>systems treat as fair game for their own purposes, and also from not being very 
>close to any of the notations used in logic (except for '&'). 

The | is commonly used for "or" (I don't know why): it means bitwise-or in
C, and is often used in syntax diagrams between alternative choices.  It
also means "or" in the Unix utility "egrep".

The "not" symbol was originally a "fallen L" which is the mathematical
symbol for that operator.  This is character 5F in EBCDIC (on CMS, where
REXX was originally developed).  The first PC versions of REXX used ^ for
the "not" operator, because EBCDIC 5F is commonly translated to that
character when downloading into ASCII.  However I'm not sure why "\" has been
chosen for the standard "not" operator.

>Of course there is the problem of reserved words, but surely this is a case for
>saying that code using 'and' to mean something other than '&' is just bad style.

Firstly, notice that on the right-hand side of an assignment there are no
reserved words whatsoever.  Using words for arithmetic or logic operators
goes against this.  Secondly, you may think it is bad style to have a
variable named "and", but there will surely be some programs out there that
get broken.  Consider that some programmers will name their variables in
languages other than English.  A French game program in which you have to
collect gold pieces might have a variable called "or" (think about it...)

>It would also be possible to implement xor and nand, and also the material
>conditional if a suitable abbreviation can be found

xor already exists: && (admittedly ths isn't very intuitive!).  nand isn't
that hard to do, really, is it?  \(A & B).

Finally, why stop at the logical operators?  The symbols % and // are not
very intuitive are they?  Better have a word for ** as well, just to be on
the safe side.  Oh, and if we are to have a word for not, we have to have a
word for \== too.  Etc, etc...

No, I think we are much better off with just symbols. :-)

Ian Collier
Ian.Collier@prg.ox.ac.uk | imc@ecs.ox.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: adufour@ulys.unil.ch
Subject: SysCreateObject('WPShadow', ????????? )
Organization: University of Lausanne - CH (Switzerland)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:44:43 GMT


I Need to create a shadow using the Rexx function SysCreateObject.

I have found information on how to create Programs and Folders and I have
the description of the parameters that are used. But I don't know how to 
find such information about the Shadow'class.

If anyone does know that, it would help me a lot.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------     
Arnaud Dufour                                 e-mail : adufour@ulys.unil.ch     
Assistant/Lan Manager                         tel    :     +41.21.692.41.57     
HEC-Inforge/CH-1015 Lausanne-Switzerland      fax    :     +41.21.692.41.50     
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:25:36 PST
From:         Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG@UCSFVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Even/Odd rounding

Thanks for the clarification, Mike.  Both rounding systems have anomalies.
But only one has bias.  I am just arguing for a bias-free system, not one
without anomalies.  Dave

Dave Gomberg    GOMBERG@UCSFVM  Internet node UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU     fax-> 7797
Seven Gateview Court, San Francisco CA 94116-1941      voice-> (415)731-7793
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: keck@griffin (Jay A Keck)
Subject: Re: OS/2 1.3/2.0 rexx
Keywords: rexx
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:04:24 GMT

hi,
i found my 1.3 vs 2.0 problem.  as mentioned in another post, it was pull
caausing the "problem". I found that if you use"parse value linein() with x"
it works just like pull under os/2 2.0 , no "?" prompt.
thanks,
jay keck
From: pmuellr@vnet.ibm.com (Pat Mueller)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 10:37:44 EST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Prompt for invisible input

>to do a pull to read the imput from the keyboard
>and i don't want that imput appears on the screen.
>can you help me?
>thanks.

On OS/2 you can cheat with ANSI control codes - make the foreground
and background the same before prompting the user - the stuff they
type in will be 'invisible' (blocks of arbitrary color).  Here's an
example:

   /* */
   whiteOnWhite = d2c(27) || "[47;37m"
   whiteOnBlack = d2c(27) || "[47;30m"

   call charout , "Enter a line: " || whiteOnWhite
   line = linein("STDIN:")
   say whiteOnBlack || "received ->" line

In case they don't translate well, | is vertical bar, [ is left bracket

Patrick Mueller
Programming Systems
IBM Cary, NC
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:25:45 PRT
From:         "Carlos A. C. Sousa" <MCARLOSS@PTEARN.BITNET>

Hello, annyone can tell me how can i do a "no echo" in cms rexx program?
i hope so thanx.
Keep in touch, sincerely,


   ______                                ______
  /    ___    ___    /   ___   ___      /   ___        ___    ___
 /    /  /   /__/   /   /  /  /__       \  /  /  /  / /__    /  /
(___ (__(_  (   \  (__ (__/   __/     ___/(__/  (__/  __/   (__(_

Bitnet Address       : MCARLOSS@PTEARN
Internet Address     : MCARLOSS@PTEARN.FC.UL.PT
Vax Internet address : MCARLOSS@FCVAX1.FC.UL.PT

Math Student at Classical University of Lisbon
Science College
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: SEB1525@MVS.draper.com (Steve Bacher)
Subject: Re: Spelt logical operators
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:24:00 GMT

In article <1gqgtfINN3r8@dove.doc.ic.ac.uk>,
ppch@doc.ic.ac.uk (P P C Herring) writes:

>A way of doing the material conditional which would be relatively clear
>could be
>to make 'iff' a synonym for the keyword 'if' and have 'if' change it's
>meaning 
>within a statement like:
>
>              iff B if A then do; nop; end                      .

That doesn't look all that clear to me, and making everybody spell "if"
differently is not going to make people happy either.

I'd go for "if A implies B then do; nop; end", myself.

Let's not repeat C's "=" vs. "==" disaster.

--
Steve Bacher (Batchman)                 Draper Laboratory
Internet: seb@draper.com                Cambridge, MA, USA
From: pmuellr@vnet.ibm.com (Pat Mueller)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 09:14:47 EST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: rexx and os/2 1.3 vs 2.0

>  I wrote a rexx pgm under OS/2 2.0 using charout and pull functions to prompt
>  and accept input from user.  and it works great under 2.0, but under 1.3 it
>  behaves oddly.  instead of the cursor being at the end of the text written
>  out with charout() while pull() waits for user to hit enter key,  the cursor
>  skips a couple of lines, outputs a "?" and then waits for user to hit enter
>  key.  I vaguely remember from years ago that a ":" at the end of the prompt
>  text would get around this problem, but i tried that and it made no difference
>  Can anyone tell me how to fix this so it will run under 1.3 nicely?
>  (PS i also replaced charout with "say" and the same results occurred)

The culprit is most likely 'pull'.  Try using linein("STDIN:") instead
of pull.

The questionable behaviour of the 'pull' statement prompting a user
with a "?" has thankfully been removed.  It was added to provide CMS
equivalent function - in CMS you can tell when you are being prompted
for information (you see a "VM READ" at the bottom of the screen).  The
"?" was supposed to provide the same visual cue.  At least as far as
I can remember.

Patrick Mueller
Programming Systems
IBM Cary, NC
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:07:06 EST
From: Linda Littleton <LRL@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: PARSE CALLER

My major reason for suggesting PARSE CALLER is for debugging.  Imagine a
complex system with many separate Rexx programs calling each other, and
imagine that one particular Rexx program which is called by many
different programs is getting a strange error.  You need to figure out
the circumstances under which this program was called, that is, you need
to know which other program made the call to the program that's getting
the error.

You might argue that all I need to do is turn off SIGNAL ON SYNTAX, put
in a line that will cause an error to happen, and voila, I'll see the
trace back.  However, this method is only useful if the error I'm
looking for occurs on the first call.

BTW, I'm not sure PARSE CALLER is the right way to do this.  The
information I'd like to get is not just who called me, but who called
her and so forth all the way back.
From: pmuellr@vnet.ibm.com (Pat Mueller)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 08:37:52 EST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: Running REXX pgms from a minimal OS/2 system

It sounds like you got everything but the "CMD" address set up.
The following information may or may not help - I haven't used
BOOT20 so I don't know what it does.  The information was sent to
me by Jon Seymour (IBM Australia):

  Loading REXX without PM
  -----------------------
  To load REXX without loading PM...

  REXXINIT.DLL must be loaded by a process which doesn't die.
  The loading of REXXINIT will initialize REXX.  The process
  mustn't die or REXX cannot be started again.

  To run rexx without PM you will need a process which executes a
  DosLoadModule on REXXINIT.DLL then invokes a CMD.EXE process as
  a child process (via DosExecPgm).

  Call this process: LOADREXX.EXE.

  Change CONFIG.SYS from:

    PROTSHELL=C:\os2\cmd.exe

    to

    PROTSHELL=C:\LOADREXX.EXE

  OS/2 will boot, run LOADREXX.EXE (which loads REXXINIT.DLL) and
  then start a CMD.EXE session.  REXX can be used now.

Patrick Mueller
pmuellr@vnet.ibm.com
Programming Systems, IBM Cary, NC
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: SEB1525@MVS.draper.com (Steve Bacher)
Subject: Re: Spelt logical operators
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:14:00 GMT

>Finally, why stop at the logical operators?  The symbols % and // are not
>very intuitive are they?

Not only that, but it's damned confusing.  Think about it:

In TSO CLIST, / is integer division, // is remainder.
              (There's no floating point arithmetic in CLIST.)
In REXX, / is float division, % is integer division, // is modulus.
In C, / is normal division, % is modulus.
In Common Lisp, / is integer division if all arguments are integers,
         otherwise float division - actually more complicated than this
         because of rationals, bignums, etc.
In MacLisp, // is division as in Common Lisp, / being the escape char.

In fact, I almost always have to look up that % does in C and REXX
because I can never remember it.

--
Steve Bacher (Batchman)                 Draper Laboratory
Internet: seb@draper.com                Cambridge, MA, USA
From: GOMBERG@UCSFVM.BITNET (Dave Gomberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: Rounding twice in format()
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:58:58 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              13 Dec 1992 21:36:33 LCL from <anders@LISE1.LISE.UNIT.NO>

The rounding twice phenomonon is alleviated by the old statistician's
rule of rounding exactly .5 to the nearest even number, not rounding
"up".  Rounding up introduces an obvious bias and you just saw it.
I am afraid it is too late for REXX, we will get rounding up becasue
"fixing it will break too many programs."   Dave

Dave Gomberg    GOMBERG@UCSFVM  Internet node UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU     fax-> 7797
Seven Gateview Court, San Francisco CA 94116-1941      voice-> (415)731-7793
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: anders@lise1.lise.unit.no (Anders Christensen)
Subject: Rounding twice in format()
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway
Distribution: comp
Date: 13 Dec 92 21:36:33

In some cases, TRL requires built-in function format() to round
numbers twice, which may result in confusing output. 

The following piece of code demonstrates the problem (notice the last
digit of the output in the third line):

   say format( '1.0000045',, 5 )      /* says  1.00000  */
   say format( '1.00000045',, 6 )     /* says  1.000000  */
   say format( '1.000000045',, 7 )    /* says  1.0000001  */
   say format( '1.0000000045',, 8 )   /* says  1.00000000  */
   say format( '1.00000000045',, 9 )  /* says  1.000000000  */

Is it a bug or an intended feature?  (Or maybe is it just what I
should expect when working too close to the setting of digits() :-) 

-anders
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: brown@cs.tulane.edu (Anthony Brown (Tony))
Subject: A general question about languages - Rexx, Natural, C++, and Cobol
Keywords: Rexx Natural C++ Cobol
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:33:57 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-22412]: sparta


I am new to the world of IBM mainframe computing, but I have had a little
experience with Rexx and I think it has a lot of power.  However, I was
wondering if there are any good Object Oriented languages available for IBM
systems?  I mean a language like C++.  I heard that you can get a C compiler
for the MVS operating system.  I wonder if its any good.  Also I have heard
alot about Natural.  Is it anything like Rexx?  Finaly, besides the fact
that Cobol is so heavily used that it would be hard to stop using it and
change to a different language, is there any reason why Cobol should be used
over other languages like Rexx or Natural? Does Cobol have some functionality
that other languages do not?
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			o-----o     Anthony L. Brown (Tony)
			|\    |\
			| o---+-o     brown@cs.tulane.edu
			o-+---o |      Tulane University
			 \|    \|        New Orleans LA
			  o-----o
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: ppch@doc.ic.ac.uk (P P C Herring)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Spelt logical operators
Followup-To: comp.lang.rexx
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:57:02 -0000
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak9.doc.ic.ac.uk


Has anyone ever suggested that Rexx implement the logical operators in words as
well as in symbols? 

I mean:                  if not A or (B and C) then ... 
as an alternative to:    if \A | (B & C) then ...        
which suffers from using characters that keyboard manufacturers and operating 
systems treat as fair game for their own purposes, and also from not being very 
close to any of the notations used in logic (except for '&'). 

Of course there is the problem of reserved words, but surely this is a case for
saying that code using 'and' to mean something other than '&' is just bad style.

It would also be possible to implement xor and nand, and also the material
conditional if a suitable abbreviation can be found (the colloquial term in logic
is 'hook' because the symbol - U on its side pointing to the right - looks a bit
like one; this would suit me but is not really intuitive).  

/* Patrick Herring, Imperial College, University of London */
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: keck@griffin (Jay A Keck)
Subject: rexx and os/2 1.3 vs 2.0
Keywords: rexx
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:13:14 GMT


Hi,
  I wrote a rexx pgm under OS/2 2.0 using charout and pull functions to prompt
  and accept input from user.  and it works great under 2.0, but under 1.3 it
  behaves oddly.  instead of the cursor being at the end of the text written
  out with charout() while pull() waits for user to hit enter key,  the cursor
  skips a couple of lines, outputs a "?" and then waits for user to hit enter
  key.  I vaguely remember from years ago that a ":" at the end of the prompt
  text would get around this problem, but i tried that and it made no difference
  Can anyone tell me how to fix this so it will run under 1.3 nicely?
  (PS i also replaced charout with "say" and the same results occurred)
  Below is an extract of one of my prompts from my pgm.
 thanks,
 Jay keck

/* */
"@echo off"
do queued(); pull .;end;
  call charout "STDOUT:","is is this correct profile?(Y/N) ==> "
  pull response
From: ppch@doc.ic.ac.uk (P P C Herring)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: A general question about languages - Rexx, Natural, C++, and Cobol
Keywords: Rexx Natural C++ Cobol
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:52:01 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
NNTP-Posting-Host: dove.doc.ic.ac.uk


In article <1992Dec17.153357.22437@cs.tulane.edu>, brown@cs.tulane.edu (Anthony Brown (Tony)) writes:
|> 
|> I am new to the world of IBM mainframe computing,
 ...

|>                                                 Finaly, besides the fact
|> that Cobol is so heavily used that it would be hard to stop using it and
|> change to a different language, is there any reason why Cobol should be used
|> over other languages like Rexx or Natural? Does Cobol have some functionality
|> that other languages do not?

A lot of mainframe system use database management systems that allow their data
manipulation and retrieval commands to be embedded in a small set of supported
languages, of which COBOL is always one because when the DBMS was first thought
of ... . IBM's DB2 and CA's IDMS are examples of what I mean. This means COBOL 
does in fact have functionality that other languages don't (PL/1 might be a
contender).

/* Patrick Herring, Imperial College, University of London */ 
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: CHBRIN5@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Kai Hortmann)
Subject: REXX under MS-DOS
Organization: University of Konstanz, Germany
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:55:58 GMT

Hello!

I'm just in the process of switching from Amiga to MS-DOS. Now I called
several software sellers here in Germany asking for REXX under MS-DOS and
they had never heard of it. Could some kind soul tell me if there is such
a thing as REXX under MS-DOS or if it is only available under OS2? If it
exists, which company produces the program? Any idea how I could get hold
of it? Thanks in advance

<*     Kai Hortmann - University of Konstanz - Germany      *>
<* chbrin5@dknkurz1.bitnet  or  chbrin5@nyx.uni-konstanz.de *>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com (John Brock)
Subject: Re:      Even/Odd rounding
Reply-To: uunet!csfb1!jbrock
Organization: First Boston Corporation
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:53:11 GMT

In article <REXXLIST%92121605082447@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>,         Mike Cowlishaw <mfc@VNET.IBM.COM> writes:
|> Consider:
|> 
|>   numeric digits 9
|>   say 0 + 888888888.5000000000xxxx000000001
|> 
|> (where xxxx is an arbitrary number of zeros).  This number should
|> always be rounded up, never down, as should:
|> 
|>   say 0 + 888888888.59999999xxxx9999999
|> 
|> (where xxxx is an arbitrary number of nines).  In other words, the
|> even/odd rule can only be applied if you have inspected all digits
|> to the right and confirmed that they are zeros.  If you do inspect
|> them, then your results are influenced by more than DIGITS()+1
|> digits, and hence don't follow the principles of NUMERIC DIGITS.
|> If you don't inspect them, then quite large errors occur (as in the
|> second case above).
|> 
|> Mike

What about:

  numeric digits 9
  say 0 + 888888888.5000000000xxxx00000000Z

where the last character is is in fact the letter "Z".  This should
fail, as we no longer have a valid number.  So it seems to me that we
always have to inspect all of the digits anyway, so where is the harm
in using even/odd rounding?

-- 
John Brock
uunet!csfb1!jbrock
jbrock@csfb1.fir.fbc.com
From: ppch@doc.ic.ac.uk (P P C Herring)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: Discussion Notes from 9/92 ANSI meeting
Followup-To: comp.lang.rexx
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:27:17 -0000
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak9.doc.ic.ac.uk
Keywords: ANSI Rexx


In article <92338.102410LRL@psuvm.psu.edu>, LRL@psuvm.psu.edu (Linda Littleton) writes:
|> A PARSE CALLER was suggested to make clear the caller of a routine.

How could this be implemented without the collusion of the calling interpreter,
compiler, OS ?

Wouldn't it become a central feature of Rexx if included, and
thus have a major effect on portability?
 
/* Patrick Herring, Imperial College, University of London */
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Subject: Re: REXX under MS-DOS
Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail.  Playa del Rey, CA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 08:22:32 GMT

In article <168C1A7CE.CHBRIN5@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> CHBRIN5@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Kai Hortmann) writes:

>I'm just in the process of switching from Amiga to MS-DOS. Now I called
>several software sellers here in Germany asking for REXX under MS-DOS and
>they had never heard of it. Could some kind soul tell me if there is such
>a thing as REXX under MS-DOS or if it is only available under OS2? If it
>exists, which company produces the program? Any idea how I could get hold
>of it? Thanks in advance

Personal Rexx from Mansfield.  I don't have their address, but perhaps
Dr Gomberg (who uses it) can supply it.  Also check out Kedit from them.
After 15 minutes with it, it will be the only editor you will ever use.
And, You can write Kedit macros in Presonal Rexx.
-- 
Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com   310-417-8999
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com       310-649-0238
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....
From: ppch@doc.ic.ac.uk (P P C Herring)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: Spelt logical operators
Date: 18 Dec 1992 15:26:51 -0000
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak48.doc.ic.ac.uk


In article <19921217202410SEB1525@MVS.draper.com>, Steve Bacher writes:
|> In article <1gqgtfINN3r8@dove.doc.ic.ac.uk>,
|> ppch@doc.ic.ac.uk (P P C Herring) writes:
|> 
|> >A way of doing the material conditional which would be relatively clear
|> >could be
|> >to make 'iff' a synonym for the keyword 'if' and have 'if' change it's
|> >meaning 
|> >within a statement like:
|> >
|> >              iff B if A then do; nop; end                      .
|> 
|> That doesn't look all that clear to me, and making everybody spell "if"
|> differently is not going to make people happy either.
|> 
|> I'd go for "if A implies B then do; nop; end", myself.
|> 
|> Let's not repeat C's "=" vs. "==" disaster.

I agree with this. I just wish I'd thought of it. I think I was trying to make
the relationship between 'iff' and 'if' clear in the code, but it would be better
to do this in the manual. 'implies' is perfect for practical clarity.


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:01:43 PST
From:         Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG@UCSFVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rounding twice in format()

On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:44:38 GMT Mike Cowlishaw said:
>Even/odd rounding was discounted for REXX because it implies processing
>an arbitrary number of digits, even if NUMERIC DIGITS is known (see
>footnote 40 on page 130 of "The REXX Language").

Mike, I don't get this.  Rounding now does 1-4 down, 5-9 up.  Even-odd
rounding need only depend on that same number of digits: 1-4 down, 6-9 up,
5 up if the previous (more to the left) digit is odd, down if it is even.

Where did I miss the boat?   Dave

Dave Gomberg    GOMBERG@UCSFVM  Internet node UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU     fax-> 7797
Seven Gateview Court, San Francisco CA 94116-1941      voice-> (415)731-7793
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU