glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I had once thought that unformatted files were in
> terms of what now seems to be called
> "numeric storage unit". I was, then, surprised to
> find them in terms of bytes.
They were always in "processor-dependent units". The processor-dependent
unit got a name (file storage unit) in f2003, along with a nonbinding
recommendation, but no change of substance.
The "processor-dependent units" were indeed processor dependent, as one
might guess. If you ever thought otherwise, I'm afraid that can't be
traced to any wording in the standard. I do realize that many people had
such a confusion, but that doesn't have much to do with the standard,
which gave not even a hint that the units in question would have
anything to do with either numeric storage units or bytes.
And I still don't see how this relates to the question about encoding,
except insomuch as both are things people might be confused about, in
which case they are both members of a large set.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your citation style or something. It
looks like you were answering my question about the relation****p between
the recl and encoding maters, but then I don't see anything even
mentioning a relation****p. All I see is commentary on recl.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
|
