Differences in EDT and EVE

[Michael Menge]

Hi,

I have noticed following differences between the two editors EDT and EVE (VMS 8.3 Alpha)when creating a new file:

$ DIR t.dat
%DIRECT-W-NOFILES, no files found
$ EDIT/EDT t.dat;3 ! Version 3
... exit
$ DIR t.dat
Directory A03_1:[WORK]
T.DAT;1 ! Version 1
$ DEL t.dat;
DELETE-I-FILDEL, A03_1:[WORK]T.DAT;1 deleted

$ EVE t.dat;3 ! Version 3
... exit
$ DIR t.dat
Directory A03_1:[WORK]
T.DAT;3 ! Version 3
$ DEL t.dat;
DELETE-I-FILDEL, A03_1:[WORK]T.DAT;3 deleted

Is it a bug or a feature?

[Volker Halle]

Michael,

EDT warns you, that the input file does not exist and uses the input file specification to create the output file. It does not seem to use the version number from the input file specification when creating the output file.

The EDT manual specifies for the EXIT command:

EDT uses the input file name or file type in
place of whichever item is missing.

So that seems to be a feature.

I cannot reproduce your reported behaviour regarding EVE. What is 'EVE' in your context ?

Volker.

[Michael Menge]

Volker,

EVE == "EDIT/TPU/NOCOM"
and
EVE$INIT points to a file EVE$INIT.EVE I have attached.
I get the same results on VMS VAX V7.3:
If there is no file T.DAT;* then EVE creates the new file with the given version number; if there exists a file the new file will get a version number one higher than the highest existing.
I has to do with our environment. I have tried it on DECUS-VAX and there EVE sets the version number to 1 as on your VMS machine.
What parameter in EVE can be the reason for that?

[Volker Halle]

Michael,

even with the EVE$INIT file you've provided and the EVE symbol value shown, I cannot reproduce the behaviour you are seeing regarding the file version number. Tried it on VAX V7.3.

Do you have a special TPU Section file ? Within EVE issue the SHOW SUMMARY command. What is the section file name ?

Volker.

[Volker Halle]

Michael,

the default behaviour of TPU (EVE) with regard to saving the file is explained in TPU help - see HELP WRITE FILE

GET FILE memo.txt
WRITE FILE

Edits a file named MEMO.TXT and then writes your edits to a new version of that file (or version 1 if you are creating a new file).

So the default behaviour seems to be like it's documented.

Volker.

[Michael Menge]

Volker,

it's my secton file. If I $DEASS TPU$SECTION
EVE behaves like EDT an creates a file with version number 1.
Does someone know which parameter of TPU is responsible for this different behaviour?
I didn't know that the version number for new files is controllable from inside TPU.

[Volker Halle]

Michael,

did you have a look at the DEC TPU and EVE Reference Manuals ? There are ways to handle filenames and the WRITE_FILE command takes a filename string as a parameter.

AFAIK there is no way to 'dis-assemble' a section file. You would need to find the soruce code, from which your TPU section file has been created.

Volker.

[John Gillings]

Michael,

Please don't use EDT. It was made obselete more than 20 years ago, It's had no maintenance in that time (and won't ever have any more). Its file handling has many limitations and oddities, as well as numerous outright bugs. There's nothing EDT can do which EVE can't do better, more consistently and more efficiently. For those die hards that absolutely refuse to forget the rather illogical EDT keypad definitions, there's a TPU emulation.

On any other operating system EDT would long ago have been removed and forgotten. It's just the OpenVMS fanatical obsession with upwards compatibility that it still exists (not that that's entirely a bad thing, but in some cases, the past needs to be laid to rest).

[Jon Pinkley]

John Gillings>>>"There's nothing EDT can do which EVE can't do better, more consistently and more efficiently."

What about displaying the first page of a 50,000 block log file? I know that type/page is probably more appropriate for that job, but nearly any statement that includes "always, everything, never or nothing" has a high probability of being false. I never understood why TPU reads the whole file into virtual memory before something is done that requires it to be read in.

[Wim Van den Wyngaert]

I'm with Jon : I use EDT for inspecting very big log files (multi GB). TPU needs to much pagefilequota for this.

WIm

[Bojan Nemec · Accepted solution]

Michael,

A similar behavior you get if you type this command instead of exit:

tpu write_file(current_buffer,get_info(current_buffer,"output_file"));exit


I am with Jon and Wim! Another thing which works better in EDT (better EDT do nothing with) is the mouse selection, so you can use normal copy paste between other windows and your editor.

Bojan

[Jan van den Ende]

Let me add my reasons when to prefer EDT:
WHen a file needs editting from within a command procedure, I find the line-editting commands for EDT _MUCH_ simpler, in combination with /COMM=...
And if in need of editting multiple files, a simple .COM file to select the relevant files and EDIT/EDT them all still has my preference.

ymmv

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Galen Tackett]

Jan wrote:
WHen a file needs editting from within a command procedure, I find the line-editting commands for EDT _MUCH_ simpler, in combination with /COMM=...
And if in need of editting multiple files, a simple .COM file to select the relevant files and EDIT/EDT them all still has my preference.


I agree with Jan. EVE is not the most easily scriptable editor in town. Here even good ol' SUMSLP has a little advantage over EVE unless the power of TPU is needed for some fancy searching or whatever. TECO also comes to mind, though its command language is almost as obscure as EMACS (though I do like both TECO and EMACS.)

BTW, I guess there's little chance of SOS being ported to IA64? :^D (I ask only because this idea makes me laugh. I think I asked the same question at a DECUS symposium when OpenVMS Alpha was first being announced.)

[Wim Van den Wyngaert]

I have in my tpu.init file (edit/tpu/init=xxx)
tpu set (mouse,off)
(and other stuff) and this results in allowing mouse cut/paste usage.

Wim

[Jan van den Ende]

Re Galen:

Yes, I have been known to use SUMSLP on a case of rather involved, multifile modification.
But in such case, you'd better spend some real time with the manual! :-)

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Dean McGorrill]

I prefer edt. and I use teco sometimes
to clean up files. heck somewhere I have
a vt100 edt macro for teco, the emulates
edt Dean

[Joe Sewell]

Now that edt-in-TECO macro is something I'd like to see.

[Jan van den Ende]

Michael,

from your Forum Profile:


I have assigned points to 10 of 47 responses to my questions.


Maybe you can find some time to do some assigning?

http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/helptips.do?#33

Mind, I do NOT say you necessarily need to give lots of points. It is fully up to _YOU_ to decide how many. If you consider an answer is not deserving any points, you can also assign 0 ( = zero ) points, and then that answer will no longer be counted as unassigned.
Consider, that every poster took at least the trouble of posting for you!

To easily find your streams with unassigned points, click your own name somewhere.
This will bring up your profile.
Near the bottom of that page, under the caption "My Question(s)" you will find "questions or topics with unassigned points " Clicking that will give all, and only, your questions that still have unassigned postings.
If you have closed some of those streams, you must "Reopen" them to "Submit points". (After which you can "Close" again)

Do not forget to explicitly activate "Submit points", or your effort gets lost again!!

Thanks on behalf of your Forum colleagues.

PS. - nothing personal in this. I try to post it to everyone with this kind of assignment ratio in this forum. If you have received a posting like this before - please do not take offence - none is intended!

PPS. - Zero points for this.

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe