Re: HOW2 macro-keys
David Kerber
> no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
...
> You can do
>
> head file | grep foo | tr a-z A-Z
>
> but no man page tells you "how to get the first ten lines of a file, look
> for "foo" and convert the resulting lines to uppercase". Instead, you have
> independent man pages for grep, head and tr. It's up to you to use them
> together to get your desired result.
And you need instructions on how to chain commands together, using pipes
and redirection. That's the hard part, not using each individual
command on its own.
....
--
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML
/ \ Email!
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
no.to...@gmail.com
> no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > There must be a zillion other users too who'd like to just press one
> > key instead of typing " | grep " ..etc.
> >
> > So I want to ask not only how to do it, but also to analyse:
> > 1. why it's not commonly known,
> > 2. why it's not simply explained,
> > 3. why much of linux docos are so lame.
> --snip--
> > Now man loadkeys tells:
> > ] One can make function key F5 (on an ordinary PC keyboard) produce
> > ] the text `Hello!', and Shift+F5 `Goodbye!' using lines
> > ]
> > ] keycode 63 = F70 F71
> > ] string F70 = "Hello!"
> > ] string F71 = "Goodbye!"
> > which is confirmed; but leaves a lot unexplained.
> >
> > Q1 where/why does 'F70, F71' come in?
> >
> > Q2 how to do similar macro-string-keys under X?
>
> The kind of explanations you're looking for is not in the man, nor is what
> man pages are for. You're looking for something like a HOWTO or a specific
> document on Linux terminal/keyboard management. That's not what man pages
> are for.
That's why I chose:
Subject: HOW2 macro-keys
>
> In your specific case, you could have a look at documents like these:
>
> http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/kbd/index.html
> http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/kbd/scancodes.html
>
No! I want something written by a scientist, not a novelist.
Eg. "Each key's press and release is detected and mapped to xyz according
to files F1, F2, ...Fn. ..."
Sone one who knows how it works could give short answers to my short
Q1 & Q2 ?
== TIA.
Lew Pitcher
> What category do you fall into, given your user agent string?
>
> User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.29.6-smp
> (i686))
I am definitely a hobbyist, at least when logged in to this machine.
But you have to admit that it is pretty difficult doing any real
work on a linux machine.
The hobbyist dream is to find somebody stupid enough to think that
linux (or slackware in this case) is capable of handling the
demands of a real business. Some hobbyists can actually make a bit
of money until said employer comes to his senses and realizes that
both slackware, and the clown he hired to admin it, are strictly
amateur hour.
LewPi...@LewPitcher.ca
--
Official Website -->> http://lewpitcher.ca/
Something to look at: -->> http://www.emusclemag.com/
Lonely in Brampton? -->> http://gaypros.meetup.com/cities/ca/on/brampton/
Peel HIV/AIDS Network -->> http://www.phan.ca/home.html
pbj
> no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> There must be a zillion other users too who'd like to just press one
>> key instead of typing " | grep " ..etc.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> Q2 how to do similar macro-string-keys under X?
>
> Use readline(1) macros, e.g in bash:
>
> bind '"\e[11~":"\C-e| grep "'
>
> or add the line to your ~/.inputrc, without the "bind".
>
> This will bind F1 to go to end of line (Ctrl-e) and type "| grep "
>
> To find out the keyseq for a specific key or key combo, simply use the
> "read" builtin and type ahead.
>
> This is for readline based terminal programs only, of course. If you
> want macros for any X program, bind a key in your wm/de to run
> xdotool(1) or a similar program, e.g. something like
>
> xdotool type "| grep"
>
> should do it.
XMacro might also be worth a look:
http://xmacro.sourceforge.net/
"The XMacro package contains two simple, C++ programs (xmacrorec and
xmacroplay) for recording and replaying keyboard and mouse events on an
X server. This functionality is achieved through the XTest extension.
(BTW it would be better to use the XTrap extension but it's not
widespread in precompiled X servers...) The programs are heavily based
on the xremote utility of Jan Ekholm (chakie at infa.abo.fi)."
Lew Pitcher
(stev...@invalid.com) wrote:
> Roger Maynard wrote:
>
>> In alt.os.linux.slackware no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> No! I want something written by a scientist, not a novelist.
>>> Eg. "Each key's press and release is detected and mapped to xyz
>>> according to files F1, F2, ...Fn. ..."
>>
>> Actually, you want the answers from a hobbyist. Novelists need
>> wordprocessing power so they'll never use linux (unless they are as
>> stupid as Dan C).
>>
>> And scientists have no time for either linux or keyboard macros.
>
> Wrong, wanker, I'm a scientist (analytical chemist) and all the
> professional chemists and astrophysicists at my uni use Linux.
>
> You can give one of your whining and abusive answers but it won't change
> the fact that that's true.
Roger is just messing with your head. He's actually trying to discredit me
by replying to messages using my name (his email address, though).
And, yes, I agree, he /is/ a wanker. And a loser. And an attempted
extortionist. Just ignore him (killfiling him works), and he won't bother
you.
--
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576
Me: http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | Just Linux: http://justlinux.ca/
---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------
steveski
> On November 19, 2009 19:28, in alt.os.linux.slackware, steveski
> (stev...@invalid.com) wrote:
>
>> Roger Maynard wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.os.linux.slackware no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> No! I want something written by a scientist, not a novelist.
>>>> Eg. "Each key's press and release is detected and mapped to xyz
>>>> according to files F1, F2, ...Fn. ..."
>>>
>>> Actually, you want the answers from a hobbyist. Novelists need
>>> wordprocessing power so they'll never use linux (unless they are as
>>> stupid as Dan C).
>>>
>>> And scientists have no time for either linux or keyboard macros.
>>
>> Wrong, wanker, I'm a scientist (analytical chemist) and all the
>> professional chemists and astrophysicists at my uni use Linux.
>>
>> You can give one of your whining and abusive answers but it won't change
>> the fact that that's true.
>
> Roger is just messing with your head. He's actually trying to discredit me
> by replying to messages using my name (his email address, though).
>
> And, yes, I agree, he /is/ a wanker. And a loser. And an attempted
> extortionist. Just ignore him (killfiling him works), and he won't bother
> you.
I know, RealLew, but sometimes I just can't help myself . . .
--
Steveski
Lew Pitcher
(stev...@invalid.com) wrote:
> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
>> On November 19, 2009 19:28, in alt.os.linux.slackware, steveski
>> (stev...@invalid.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Roger Maynard wrote:
[some useless blather that I've snipped]
>>>
>>> Wrong, wanker, I'm a scientist (analytical chemist) and all the
>>> professional chemists and astrophysicists at my uni use Linux.
>>>
>>> You can give one of your whining and abusive answers but it won't change
>>> the fact that that's true.
>>
>> Roger is just messing with your head. He's actually trying to discredit
>> me by replying to messages using my name (his email address, though).
>>
>> And, yes, I agree, he /is/ a wanker. And a loser. And an attempted
>> extortionist. Just ignore him (killfiling him works), and he won't bother
>> you.
>
> I know, RealLew, but sometimes I just can't help myself . . .
Yah. I know how that feels. When I'm forced to read via Google Groups, I
have a hard time myself. Curse Google for not providing even rudimentary
filtering :-)
Take care. Luck be with you
Lew Pitcher
> Wrong, wanker, I'm a scientist (analytical chemist) and all the
> professional chemists and astrophysicists at my uni use Linux.
Sorry, sweets. But those who work at universities are hardly
professional chemists and astrophysicists. Your job is to spend
other people's money. Professionals work to earn money and you
won't earn any money if you spend your whole day fiddling with
slackware.
> You can give one of your whining and abusive answers but it won't
> change the fact that that's true.
We don't whine and we don't make abusive answers. In fact, we
called you "sweets", even after you called us a "wanker."
Those who can, do, and those who can't, use linux.
A Guy Called Tyketto
Hash: SHA1
Lew Pitcher <lewpi...@lewpitcher.ca> wrote:
>
> Those who can, do, and those who can't, use linux.
>
Then I guess you can't do a damn thing then:
Sender: <r...@big.realtomargarino.ca>
From: Lew Pitcher <lewpi...@lewpitcher.ca>
Subject: Re: Re (2): HOW2 macro-keys
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.29.6-smp(i686))
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tosser.
BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyk...@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | tyk...@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLBhD3yBkZmuMZ8L8RAqMNAKDFspBCKjrkgUOW0BBkxoT6yO3sWQCg006O
eHsv2iiwMcMHWIuenKDOd2E=
=at+d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lew Pitcher
pgp trash troll delete
> Lew Pitcher <lewpi...@lewpitcher.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Those who can, do, and those who can't, use linux.
>>
>
> Then I guess you can't do a damn thing then:
>
> Sender: <r...@big.realtomargarino.ca>
> From: Lew Pitcher <lewpi...@lewpitcher.ca>
> Subject: Re: Re (2): HOW2 macro-keys
> Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
> User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.29.6-smp(i686))
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We find that linux is much better at handling the ancient ascii text based
forms of communication, such a usenet.
In fact, we would go as far as saying that usenet is about the only
place we indulge ourselves in our linux hobby, these days.
BTW: Where is The Coward Hicks hiding?
Chris F.A. Johnson
> In alt.os.linux.slackware Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, you want the answers from a hobbyist. Novelists need
>>> wordprocessing power so they'll never use linux (unless they are as
>>> stupid as Dan C).
>>>
>> ago, Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were able to convince the bosses
>> that they should be able to spend time on creating Unix because it
>> could be used for wordprocessing, dealing with all the patents AT&T
>> applied for. The first users were apparently secretaries who had
>> to write the stuff up. There was a time when a "writer's workbench" was
>> part of Unix.
>
> Forty years ago? You mean long before the modern operating system
> existed?
Unix was created 40 years ago.
>> Of course your premise is also faulty, since you believe writers
>> need fancy. They aren't dealing with fancy layout, someone else
>> does that. They just need a better typewriter, and just about any
>> editing program on a computer is better than a typewriter; so much
>> easier to make corrections, so much easier to not have to roll in
>> paper at the end of each page. A spell checker might be useful,
>> some other peripheral programs might be handy, but they aren't a
>> necessity. Someone "merely" writing may need a lot less power
>> than a lot of other computer needs.
>
> Obviously you're an experienced writer. LaTex? Vim?
>
>> A quarter century ago, the only practical thing I could think of for
>> having a computer was to write. You don't need much. Ironically,
>> Linux is overkill for a lot of writing purposes (so is Windows) but
>> since it's reliable and stable, it's a good choice.
>
> Not nearly as good as windows, especially if you want to submit Word
> DOCs electronically.
Nonsense. My books were written in OpenOffice and submitted as
(shudder) .doc files without any problems.
>>> And scientists have no time for either linux or keyboard macros.
>>>
>> Like Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie weren't computer scientists when
>> they were at AT&T?
>
> Were they scientists? Or engineers?
>
> But then again, that was 40 years ago, so how is it relevant?
What does how long ago it was have to do with anything?
>> Richard Stallman was getting paid when he decided the world needed
>> GNU, and he got funding (hence "professional") to provide himself
>> with a salary as he started work on it. And of course, GNU was a
>> source of a chunk of the non-kernel parts that allowed Linus's
>> kernel to be an operating system.
>
> GNU was a total flop and wouldn't be remembered at all but for the
> development of linux. We, ourselves, waited for GNU to amount to
> something. And we waited some more. And some more...
Not true. Many installations installed the GNU utilities as they
offered considerably greater functionality than the standard
utilities.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence
Chris F.A. Johnson
I didn't think that could really be you, and I had intended to say
that.
...
> Again, this is all just RM yanking your chain, using my name to do it.
> Another part of his extortion attempt against me, I guess ;-)
Lew Pitcher
>
> On November 20, 2009 12:06, in alt.os.linux.slackware, Chris F.A. Johnson
> (cfajo...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On 2009-11-20, LewPitcher.ca wrote:
>>> Forty years ago? You mean long before the modern operating system
>>> existed?
>>
>> Unix was created 40 years ago.
>
> VMS is about 35 years old, and DOS is about 30 years old. Both of these are
> the progenitors of "Windows 7". I guess that means that even the
> most "modern operating system" is ancient in Roger's eyes.
Windows 7 has absolutely nothing to do with VMS. Absolutely
nothing. And we suspect you've never even used VMS. And the only
thing that Windows 7 has to do with any form of DOS is that
Microsoft marketed both.
That's it.
>> Nonsense. My books were written in OpenOffice and submitted as
>> (shudder) .doc files without any problems.
> A couple of other authors I know also use Linux and OpenOffice when they
> write.
Sure. And the reason that nobody in the business world uses
the _free_ OpenOffice.org is the big microsoft conspiracy, right?
It's got nothing to do with the fact that OO is pure junk...
>>> But then again, that was 40 years ago, so how is it relevant?
>>
>> What does how long ago it was have to do with anything?
>
> To LewPitcher.ca, as long as his statements yank your chain, they
> are relevant.
No. We are talking about modern operating systems. Modern OS did
not exist 40 years ago and one reason is that the necessary hardware
did not yet exist.
>> Not true. Many installations installed the GNU utilities as they
>> offered considerably greater functionality than the standard
>> utilities.
>
> And many commercial Unix systems (like AIX and OS/390, for instance) include
> the GNU tools, in part because they offer greater functionality than
> propriatary tools, and they don't cost the distributor anything to supply.
GNU may be included now because people have grown used to them
through linux, where they didn't have a choice. But no commercial
vendor of any form of Unix has ever replaced its utilities with the
GNU stuff, even if they do include it as an extra.
> Again, this is all just LewPitcher.ca yanking your chain, using my
> name to do it. Another part of his extortion attempt against me,
> I guess ;-)
Ah, so whenever we speak of things of which you know nothing, we are
pulling somebody's chain, eh?
Windows 7 comes from VMS?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's too bad W7 doesn't have a COBOL compiler, eh? You'll just have
to stick to MSDOS scripting if you want to do any programming...
Lew Pitcher
> no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> In your specific case, you could have a look at documents like these:
>>>
>>> http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/kbd/index.html
>>> http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/kbd/scancodes.html
>>>
>> No! I want something written by a scientist, not a novelist.
>
> that "scientific" enough for you?
As one who has a degree in COSC, we can comfortably say that kernel
coding ain't rocket science. It ain't even voodoo science.
We wrote part of a kernel once for a 386 at university. Most of
ours, including all the bootup code, was written in PC Assembler.
And that isn't science neither. Science is research leading to,
hopefully, new ideas. There is absolutely nothing new that can be
written for linux.
Lew Pitcher
> Chris F.A. Johnson (cfajo...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> that.
> filter out of the newsgroups.
Who is RM?
>>> Again, this is all just RM yanking your chain, using my name to do it.
>>> Another part of his extortion attempt against me, I guess ;-)
Again, RM? Who is he?
> RM has taken to posting from email addresses in the lewpitcher.ca domain, a
> domain he bought (along with lewpitcher.com) in order to extort the
> justlinux.ca domain from me (see
> http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.os.linux.slackware/msg/32f669d5a7fc65b?dmode=source
> and
> http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.os.linux.slackware/msg/85282791e9af52?dmode=source
> for details)
Extort? Nonsense. You couldn't buy LewPitcher.ca or .com even if
you were to include all of your gay porn and your two dogs, Fudge
and Packer ...
Those links don't work, BTW.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
> If you are using a Linux-based operating system, then you are using GNU.
> Most of the userland comes from GNU.
No, it doesn't.
X does not. KDE does not. CUPS does not. Apache does not. Java does not.
And the linux kernel does not, too.
There is a *long* list of core linux stuff which has absolutely nothing to
do with GNU, but which is essentiell for a linux system
> Aside from that, GNU/Hurd is still under development,
And I have it from reliable sources that it will be ready in just another
3484 years. And it will need just an 8-core machine to achieve C64 speeds
--
This problem was sponsored by Microsoft
Lew Pitcher
> Lew Pitcher wrote...
>> Forty years ago? You mean long before the modern operating system
>> existed?
>
> Work on UNIX started in 1969, and it was officially released in 1970.
> That's 39 years ago. GNU/Linux is still a UNIX-family operating
> system, as are the various *BSDs, Apple's OS-X (which is based upon
> FreeBSD), Solaris, IRIX, HP/UX, AIX and probably a few others still.
Be assured, we know the history of unix. And since you do, and
since, presumably, you are also aware that 1969 was the infancy of
multi-programming, what is your point?
> UNIX has always been a modern operating system. It just got more modern
> over the years.
Actually, it has hardly changed over the years. And but for the
popularity of linux and the BSDs, it is arguable that commercial
variants would have completely disappeared by now.
Unix is not, in any way, a "modern" operating system. In fact, it
is, by far, the oldest operating system in relatively common use
today.
>> Not nearly as good as windows, especially if you want to submit Word
>> DOCs electronically.
>
> OpenOffice and KOffice can open Word documents and save documents in
> MICROS~1 formats.
Not perfectly. Never perfectly, unless the document is very simple.
> There is no need to start an abomination of an attempt at an
> operating system for that and meanwhile risk the intrusion of your
> system or it being deployed in a DDoS attack because it's already
> part of a botnet.
There is no need to start an OS for that because Windoze already
exists. And if linux/unix was anywhere nearly as popular as windoze
then it would face the same attacks. In fact, the original
"viruses" were written for unix, before windoze computers were
commonly online.
>> Were they scientists? Or engineers?
> Both. The distinction in computer sciences versus engineering was not
> as clear yet back then.
You might just as well say "Neither", if that's the case.
>> GNU was a total flop and wouldn't be remembered at all but for the
>> development of linux. We, ourselves, waited for GNU to amount to
>> something. And we waited some more. And some more...
>
> If you are using a Linux-based operating system, then you are using GNU.
That's what we just said. And immediately above this line, too.
> Most of the userland comes from GNU. Aside from that, GNU/Hurd is
> still under development, and there are also other systems with the GNU
> userland. NexentOS for instance is the GNU userland on top of the
> OpenSolaris kernel. Several *BSD variants (FreeBSD, NetBSD) also exist
> with a GNU userland.
Again, but for the fact of the popularity of linux, GNU would no
longer exist.
GNU utilities belong to a different time. They belong to a time
before GUIs became the default interface of the modern OS.
Lew Pitcher
> RM has taken to posting from email addresses in the lewpitcher.ca
> domain, a domain he bought (along with lewpitcher.com) in order to
> extort the justlinux.ca domain from me
Why would we want to "extort" a domain name from you?
You are truly crazy, aren't you?
Again, why would we want to "extort" a domain name, or anything
else, from you?
Why?
But you won't answer that question, will you chuckles?
Start using your real name. After all, we are LewPitcher.ca, not
you. It is you that is using our domain name in your address.
Grow up.
Lew Pitcher
> RM has taken to posting from email addresses in the lewpitcher.ca domain, a
> domain he bought (along with lewpitcher.com) in order to extort the
> justlinux.ca domain from me
You are truly nuts.
If everyone simply killfiles the imposter, lpit...@teksavvy.com,
this silliness will end.
There is only one Lew Pitcher. And it ain't you.
High Plains Thumper
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> Aside from that, GNU/Hurd is still under development,
>
> And I have it from reliable sources that it will be ready in just
> another 3484 years. And it will need just an 8-core machine to
> achieve C64 speeds
(OT) Back some 25+ years ago, I helped a friend write a 6502 hand
assembly programme stuffed in a BASIC REM statement, to clear the
screen. (BASIC graphic poking was a bit slow.)
Fantastic machine, too bad the convicted monopoly maintainer got a foot
hold and destroyed the home computer market, just as what is going on
with the netbook market and all non-standard non-Intel chipset stuff,
unfortunately.
--
HPT
John F. Morse
If you wrote it in a REM statement, then it didn't do anything. ;-)
A REM is a "REMark" the same as a "comment" ("#") in the Unix world,
meant for jogging the memory in humans. The BASIC compiler or
interpretor ignores REM statements, as will others, like FORTRAN, etc.
On the Apple II, also with a 6502 CPU, the BASIC command to clear the
screen was:
CALL -936
It's been about 31 years, so I may have that address incorrect, but it
was used quite often. Also, the Apple II "Monitor" ROM code, a Steve
Wozniak classic, was certainly different than the Commodore C64 ROM code.
In 6502 assembly it would be"
JSR $FC58
Which is hex for 64600. This is the difference between 65536 and -936
since the 6502 only counted up to 32767. So higher addresses up to 65535
had to be represented by negative numbers counting downward from
65536-1, or 65535 ($FFFF).
And in raw binary machine opcode: $20 FC 58 (again represented in hex),
or in pure binary as:
00100000 11111100 01011000
--
John
Lew Pitcher
>
> It's been about 31 years, so I may have that address incorrect, but it
> was used quite often. Also, the Apple II "Monitor" ROM code, a Steve
> Wozniak classic, was certainly different than the Commodore C64 ROM code.
>
> In 6502 assembly it would be"
>
> JSR $FC58
>
> Which is hex for 64600. This is the difference between 65536 and -936
> since the 6502 only counted up to 32767. So higher addresses up to 65535
> had to be represented by negative numbers counting downward from
> 65536-1, or 65535 ($FFFF).
>
> And in raw binary machine opcode: $20 FC 58 (again represented in hex),
> or in pure binary as:
>
> 00100000 11111100 01011000
oohh.
Did you have a lisa assembler? (not to be confused with the Lisa
Apple)
cordially, as always,
Martin
> If you wrote it in a REM statement, then it didn't do anything. ;-)
Not in BASIC, but you could have used a monitor program or POKE to create a
small machine language program in an already existing REM line, which could
be called using SYS.
Martin
John F. Morse
> In alt.os.linux.slackware John F. Morse <jo...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It's been about 31 years, so I may have that address incorrect, but it
>> was used quite often. Also, the Apple II "Monitor" ROM code, a Steve
>> Wozniak classic, was certainly different than the Commodore C64 ROM code.
>>
>> In 6502 assembly it would be"
>>
>> JSR $FC58
>>
>> Which is hex for 64600. This is the difference between 65536 and -936
>> since the 6502 only counted up to 32767. So higher addresses up to 65535
>> had to be represented by negative numbers counting downward from
>> 65536-1, or 65535 ($FFFF).
>>
>> And in raw binary machine opcode: $20 FC 58 (again represented in hex),
>> or in pure binary as:
>>
>> 00100000 11111100 01011000
>>
>
> oohh.
>
> Did you have a lisa assembler? (not to be confused with the Lisa
> Apple)
>
That sounds familiar. I did have a commercial assembler, but cannot
remember the name.
I do remember using Wozniak's built-in mini-assembler and disassembler
quite frequently. Very handy for minor edits.
--
John
jellybean stonerfish
>> (OT) Back some 25+ years ago, I helped a friend write a 6502 hand
>> assembly programme stuffed in a BASIC REM statement, to clear the
>> screen. (BASIC graphic poking was a bit slow.)
>>
>> Fantastic machine, too bad the convicted monopoly maintainer got a foot
>> hold and destroyed the home computer market, just as what is going on
>> with the netbook market and all non-standard non-Intel chipset stuff,
>> unfortunately.
>>
>>
>
> If you wrote it in a REM statement, then it didn't do anything. ;-)
>
> A REM is a "REMark" the same as a "comment" ("#") in the Unix world,
> meant for jogging the memory in humans. The BASIC compiler or
> interpretor ignores REM statements, as will others, like FORTRAN, etc.
If you ever had an old apple II you would have seen examples of this in
basic programs. IIRC, the assembled code was in a rem statement, then
you used "poke" to jump to the desired location in memory where the rem
statement is saved. I believe the demo program "applevision" did something
like this, but didn't even use the rem statement, it just had the code
appended to the end of the basic program. It has been 30 years, so I could
be a bit wrong.
John F. Morse
Like I stated, REM is a comment. That is all it is. It can do nothing
except maybe jog the memory of the reader.
The POKE command entered data into a memory address. That's all it did.
The POKE command contained the address and the value, such as:
POKE 32409, 255
That puts a 255 ($FF) or all eight bits set, into memory address 32409
($7E99).
POKEing data into memory was a slow process used from within a BASIC
program. It was far faster to BLOAD the data.
To see what is an address from BASIC, the PEEK instruction was used:
PEEK 32409
Which would return with 255 in the example.
From BASIC, the method to jump to an address was to use the CALL command.
CALL -936
That transfers execution from BASIC to the 6502 to run whatever is at
the address -936 (64600 or $FC58).
I have three working Apple II-series computers: an Apple ][, an Apple
II+, and an Apple //e.
Probably more 1970s money tied up in those three, and all of the
accessories and peripherals, than in all of the other 59 computers I own!
--
John
Lew Pitcher
(jo...@example.invalid) wrote:
[snip]
> Like I stated, REM is a comment. That is all it is. It can do nothing
> except maybe jog the memory of the reader.
In some hacks, REM statements were crucial. They acted as a buffer in which
you could POKE machine instructions that you could then GOSUB to.
You see, even though the REM was a "remark", any text you placed in the REM
was preserved. Thus, for instance,
1000 REM THIS IS SOME SPACE
would reserve 18 bytes (filled with the string "THIS IS SOME SPACE").
There were ways (depending on the BASIC interpreter) to determine the
machine location of this reserved space, and once you had the location, you
could POKE binary data into the space, overwriting the textual comment.
Since the REM line had a BASIC linenumber, it could be the target for a
GOSUB or GOTO instruction. And, some BASIC interpreters would happily
execute the machine language found at that location.
Thus, the REM/POKE/GOSUB combination became one of the "tools" that BASIC
programmers (if you could call them that) would use to implement
machine-language hacks on their systems.
I seem to remember a number of Apple ][ "games" that used this technique.
[snip]
--
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576
Me: http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | Just Linux: http://justlinux.ca/
---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------
John F. Morse
> On November 29, 2009 17:56, in alt.os.linux.slackware, John F. Morse
> (jo...@example.invalid) wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Like I stated, REM is a comment. That is all it is. It can do nothing
>> except maybe jog the memory of the reader.
>>
>
> In some hacks, REM statements were crucial. They acted as a buffer in which
> you could POKE machine instructions that you could then GOSUB to.
>
> You see, even though the REM was a "remark", any text you placed in the REM
> was preserved. Thus, for instance,
>
> 1000 REM THIS IS SOME SPACE
>
> would reserve 18 bytes (filled with the string "THIS IS SOME SPACE").
>
That sounds like a good "hack."
> There were ways (depending on the BASIC interpreter) to determine the
> machine location of this reserved space, and once you had the location, you
> could POKE binary data into the space, overwriting the textual comment.
>
> Since the REM line had a BASIC linenumber, it could be the target for a
> GOSUB or GOTO instruction. And, some BASIC interpreters would happily
> execute the machine language found at that location.
>
To do that, the BASIC "REM" would need to be POKEd with the values to
turn it into a BASIC "CALL" statement in order to jump into machine code.
A GOSUB from BASIC into an unrecognizable machine code value wouldn't
work because it would result in a ***SYNTAX ERR being displayed.
> Thus, the REM/POKE/GOSUB combination became one of the "tools" that BASIC
> programmers (if you could call them that) would use to implement
> machine-language hacks on their systems.
>
> I seem to remember a number of Apple ][ "games" that used this technique.
>
I remember pairs of numeral data stored in statements, possibly REMs,
but there were also DATA statements. This data would be sequentially
loaded and POKEd from FOR-NEXT loops.
Some of the tools to select the text were RIGHTSTRING, and LEFTSTRING
(LEFT$(s,x) and RIGHT$(s,x) plus MID$s,x,y)), which could easily step
over the "REM " statement label and following space.
Of course to "prove" this, I'd need to go down to the basement and
unpack one of the Apples and test it. ;-)
Or try and find the online suite that had a working Apple II available
-- after downloading the Apple II Monitor ROM code. It's been a few
years since I played with it, and I don't even remember if it was for
Linux, Windows or the Mac.
This certainly isn't very high up on my list of priorities, but
nevertheless, would be fun to play with.
My original Apple ][ was $1200. It includes the original "Red Book."
http://www.landsnail.com/a2ref.htm
--
John
Lew Pitcher
> except maybe jog the memory of the reader.
>
> The POKE command entered data into a memory address. That's all it did.
>
> The POKE command contained the address and the value, such as:
>
> POKE 32409, 255
>
> That puts a 255 ($FF) or all eight bits set, into memory address 32409
> ($7E99).
>
> POKEing data into memory was a slow process used from within a BASIC
> program. It was far faster to BLOAD the data.
>
> To see what is an address from BASIC, the PEEK instruction was used:
>
> PEEK 32409
>
> Which would return with 255 in the example.
>
> From BASIC, the method to jump to an address was to use the CALL command.
>
> CALL -936
>
> That transfers execution from BASIC to the 6502 to run whatever is at
> the address -936 (64600 or $FC58).
I would agree with this recollection. I once remember writing a
burglar alarm program using a peek at the game controller button
address. You could make an electrical circuit to the game
controller button location and then peek to see if the circuit was
open or close. But it was so unreliable that I had to peek about 50
times and then work out the average of the returned value to know if
if the circuit was open or closed.
> I have three working Apple II-series computers: an Apple ][, an Apple
> II+, and an Apple //e.
I envy you. I sold my Apple II+ for 800 bucks. It's too bad you
didn't have the IIc and the III to complete your collection.
> Probably more 1970s money tied up in those three, and all of the
> accessories and peripherals, than in all of the other 59 computers I own!
I think I paid something like 600 bucks (in 1980 Canadian dollars!)
for my floppy drive! My first arcade game was "Space Eggs." My
favourite was either LodeRunner or Raptor!
Lew Pitcher
> (jo...@example.invalid) wrote:
> [snip]
>> Like I stated, REM is a comment. That is all it is. It can do
>> nothing except maybe jog the memory of the reader.
>
> In some hacks, REM statements were crucial. They acted as a buffer
> in which you could POKE machine instructions that you could then
> GOSUB to.
>
> You see, even though the REM was a "remark", any text you placed
> in the REM was preserved. Thus, for instance,
>
> 1000 REM THIS IS SOME SPACE
>
> would reserve 18 bytes (filled with the string "THIS IS SOME
> SPACE").
>
> There were ways (depending on the BASIC interpreter) to determine
> the machine location of this reserved space, and once you had the
> location, you could POKE binary data into the space, overwriting
> the textual comment.
But it was much easier to simply poke known locations with the
values you wanted. What you are describing is a "trick" with
limited - or no - practical value. What's more, if you changed the
program in any way, you might have to recalculate where the REM
statement loaded the values.
IOW, this is a bush way of doing things.
> Since the REM line had a BASIC linenumber, it could be the target for a
> GOSUB or GOTO instruction. And, some BASIC interpreters would happily
> execute the machine language found at that location.
>
> Thus, the REM/POKE/GOSUB combination became one of the "tools" that BASIC
> programmers (if you could call them that) would use to implement
> machine-language hacks on their systems.
I never saw it, at least not on an apple. While it might work,
there really is not much point to it, is there, since there is a
proper way to go about it.
> I seem to remember a number of Apple ][ "games" that used this technique.
I doubt that. There is no reason to do it. There might be a reason
to do it with a basic that didn't support PEEK, POKE and CALL, but
since both Applesoft and Integer Basic supported those commands,
there would be no reason to incorporate such a hack, unless you
didn't know what you were doing.
But hell, you were a COBOL programmer! I used to like to bump into
turds like you carrying stacks several feet high of cards at the
Physics Annex building at U of T.
But that would be turds _like_ you, because of course, U of T would
never have admitted you.
Now again, could you please stop using my name? LewPitcher.ca is
registered to me, not you. I am the legal owner of that name, not
you.
Why don't you call yourself r...@justlinux.ca?
John F. Morse
> I would agree with this recollection. I once remember writing a
> burglar alarm program using a peek at the game controller button
> address. You could make an electrical circuit to the game
> controller button location and then peek to see if the circuit was
> open or close. But it was so unreliable that I had to peek about 50
> times and then work out the average of the returned value to know if
> if the circuit was open or closed.
>
I did the very exact same thing!
I needed an alarm on my computer room door to inform me if my
"estranged" family tried to break in.
My alarm consisted of a reed relay on the top door casing, and a magnet
with a plastic tie screwed to the top edge of the door. The reed relay
was wired to the game controller pushbutton socket pins.
I wrote a short BASIC program to monitor the game controller, which
would grab the modem and dial my digital pager should the reed relay
circuit open. It would then enter a string of nines "9999..." to the
pager call.
All of this was put on a floppy which would boot after any power loss.
One night round midnight, the pager went off, and displayed a bunch of
nines.
So I called "my" house and asked my wife at the time what she was doing.
Her reply was "nothing" so I corrected her by telling her I knew exactly
what she was up to. ;-)
Needless to say, I don't like thieves, and liars are thieves because
they steal the truth, so she became history in my life.
>> I have three working Apple II-series computers: an Apple ][, an Apple
>> II+, and an Apple //e.
>>
>
> I envy you. I sold my Apple II+ for 800 bucks. It's too bad you
> didn't have the IIc and the III to complete your collection.
>
I thought about the Apple IIc, but instead chose the Apple //e because
of the availability of expansion slots. The Apple III was, of course, a
lemon.
My brother had a few Apple IIgs computers, but I went with the Mac Plus.
>> Probably more 1970s money tied up in those three, and all of the
>> accessories and peripherals, than in all of the other 59 computers I own!
>>
>
> I think I paid something like 600 bucks (in 1980 Canadian dollars!)
> for my floppy drive! My first arcade game was "Space Eggs." My
> favourite was either LodeRunner or Raptor!
>
Yes, the Disk II was $600 USD too. I bought one, then added a second a
few weeks later. It was a little cheaper because the controller card
could handle two drives.
I added a SPST switch to the rear to short out one drive's write-protect
switch so I could write on the flip side of floppies. Notching 5-1/4"
floppies made them just a little too "floppy." ;-)
Later on I added a 800k 3.5" UniDisk drive. The Apple //e had the
DuoDisk (dual 5-1/4" drives in one housing). Later I bought the $1200 10
MB Sider hard drive, then upgraded it to a 20 MB Sider for an additional
$600. Stupid by today's prices!
I had a second Apple //e that the ex took. It had the Apple Color
Monitor and another DuoDisk. Both Apple //e computers had all seven
slots filled with this and that, as does the Apple ][.
I kept the remainder, including an ImageWriter II, dot-matrix
tractor-fed printer that could use a 4-color ribbon. I have two now, but
don't use either of them.
When I bought the Mac Plus, I added an Apple LaserWriter Plus. It had a
$6500 price tag, but I managed to talk them down to $4000. I still have
it, and a twin that my mother used, but the Canon CX toner cartridge is
no longer available, and the old course toner is also unavailable. They
have been replaced by a $500 HP Color LaserJet 2605dn.
--
John
Michael Black
> In alt.os.linux.slackware Lew Pitcher <lpit...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>> On November 29, 2009 17:56, in alt.os.linux.slackware, John F. Morse
>> (jo...@example.invalid) wrote:
>> [snip]
>
>>> Like I stated, REM is a comment. That is all it is. It can do
>>> nothing except maybe jog the memory of the reader.
>>
>> In some hacks, REM statements were crucial. They acted as a buffer
>> in which you could POKE machine instructions that you could then
>> GOSUB to.
>>
>> You see, even though the REM was a "remark", any text you placed
>> in the REM was preserved. Thus, for instance,
>>
>> 1000 REM THIS IS SOME SPACE
>>
>> would reserve 18 bytes (filled with the string "THIS IS SOME
>> SPACE").
>>
>> There were ways (depending on the BASIC interpreter) to determine
>> the machine location of this reserved space, and once you had the
>> location, you could POKE binary data into the space, overwriting
>> the textual comment.
>
> But it was much easier to simply poke known locations with the
> values you wanted. What you are describing is a "trick" with
> limited - or no - practical value. What's more, if you changed the
> program in any way, you might have to recalculate where the REM
> statement loaded the values.
>
I think there's a garbling, it being so long since those computers
were common. I remember bits of, but not all of it.
My memory says there were instances where there wasn't any useful
space, the computer using it all up or there not being any space
taht could be isolated from the rest. That likely varies with
the computer.
You'd place the REM at the beginning of the listing to ensure it
was in a definite place.
I also can remember Commodore 64 listings where odd characters were
typed directly in (since the 64 had graphics, you could directly type
in the graphic symbols from the keyboard, which then meant you could
type in more than the values of the ascii code), so the REM lines
contained the code directly, which was definitely an improvement over
the peeking and pokiing; the REM allocated the "safe" place for the code,
but set it up too.
There were also computers of that era that lacked certain operations,
so one might not have peeks or pokes and another might not have a means
of calling a machine language routine, so there were workarounds for
dealing with such computers.
Remember, the Applle II had a great monitor, and Steve Wozniak wrote
the original Integer BASIC so surely he had the foresight to include
the hooks needed for dealing with machine code, and surely he insisted
that such things be in place when Microsoft wrote the floating point
BASIC for the Apple II.
Other computers were a mix. A lot of them didn't have monitors built
in, and others wouldn't even reveal machine code subroutine entry points
in the BASIC in ROM (always claiming they couldn't guarantee that the
subroutines would always be in the same place, but likely it was also
the closed source mentality), so it required tricks and such to
add machine language code to a BASIC program.
Michael
VWWall
>
<snip content not about Apple II.>
> Remember, the Applle II had a great monitor, and Steve Wozniak wrote
> the original Integer BASIC so surely he had the foresight to include
> the hooks needed for dealing with machine code, and surely he insisted
> that such things be in place when Microsoft wrote the floating point
> BASIC for the Apple II.
>
> Other computers were a mix. A lot of them didn't have monitors built
> in, and others wouldn't even reveal machine code subroutine entry points
> in the BASIC in ROM (always claiming they couldn't guarantee that the
> subroutines would always be in the same place, but likely it was also
> the closed source mentality), so it required tricks and such to
> add machine language code to a BASIC program.
>
There's a great article by Stephen Edwards about the Apple II+ in the
December issue of "Circuit Cellar Magazine". Steve re-constructed the
Apple using modern programmable logic on a DE2 FPGA board.
While mostly about the hardware Woz used, it shows some of the tricks he
used to be able employ a standard TV set as a monitor.
Some of the code can be downloaded from:
ftp://ftp.circuitcellar.com/pub/Circuit_Cellar/2009/233/
or: http://tinyurl.com/yhae4ew
My first "real" computer was an Osborne 1, using CP/M. I learned "C" on
it from Kernighan & Ritchie's book published in 1978.
--
Virg Wall, P.E.