Parsing CSV files
in [MFC]
|
From: Tom Serface on 3 Feb 2010 14:18 Good points, but all of this discussion is likely moot since we're stuck with all the formats now :o) Tom "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:ey4J0LOpKHA.3748(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > Tom, I guess at the point, its clear that it really depends on ones > experience and needs as system, protocol, tools and/or application > developers. > > Try it yourself, create three flat files: > > MAC.TXT <CR> > DOS.TXT <CR><LF> > UNIX.TXT <LF> > > each with their natural corresponding EOL requirement. And good power > programmer text editor will support this or write a piece of code to > create example flat files. > > Now see how they NATURALLY apply at the application level for a WIDE > degree of usages from simple to more detailed. See how meaningless it is? > > At the simplest: > > TYPE xxxx > COPY xxxx LPT1: > > Or try to read each one with a DOS only based editor, like NotePad and > see how it differs? > > Now if you were an internet mail (smtp, pop3, nntp, etc) protocol author, > see how meaningless the STORAGE when these files content have RFC 2822 > information. > > I can go on forever, its not a meaningless concept at ANY level. Protocol > authors or implementations have seen enough of these talk from application > developers that its part of reason there were many goof ups. An > application developer take a LIBRARY, doesn't quite get the "details" but > begins to use it simplistically. He will find out very quickly how > "meaningless" its not AT ALL LEVELS and in particular the STORAGE level. > > Why? > > For example, assume an application has 1 file per message concept. He > can't just COPYFILE to another sub-system or maybe GATEWAY QUEUE. If he > doesn't take into account what EOL is used, he will RUN into trouble. > > I guess, understanding these subtle design points might be related to > one's experience. If you don't deal with this on an everyday basis, > across many protocols and application areas, a wide variety of interface > and integrated considerations, then I can clearly understand the higher > level view point, but that doesn't mean it is or was meaningless at ANY > level. > > -- > HLS |