Time: Mon Jun 02 10:32:45 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA13302;
	Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:32:30 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:29:25 -0700
To: Phil Daley <p_daley@conknet.com> (by way of Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar])
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: "Tools->Options->Immediate send"

[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

Hi Phil,

What do you think of:
"Tools>Options>Immediate send", instead?

Here's why (not so briefly:):

I used to work on an operating system
(PRIMOS), which used ">" to separate
directories and filenames, e.g.:

Level:        0      1      2      3  

  <PARTITOM>MFD>LEVEL1>LEVEL2>LEVEL3>FILENAME

  -or-

  <PARTITON>MFD>LEVEL1>FILENAME  

A file is a "leaf" in the forest,
a directory is a "branch in the forest, and
A partition is a "tree" in the forest :)

If you need really B-I-G files, then format
a really B-I-G partition, because files cannot
span partitions (KISS).

"PARTITOM" is searched before "PARTITON",
by default PRIMOS search fule.  This permitted 
user software to span partitions, by opening files 
by logical "treename" [sic], without reference to partitions, 
e.g.:

  OK, open mystuff>lotus.123

PRIMOS would search each Master File Directory ("MFD"),
starting with MFD 0, until it found user file 
directory "mystuff";  then it would search "mystuff"
for the filename "lotus.123".  MFD5 could even be
a remote computer, linked via a token ring network.
Very elegant, in my opinion.  If there were two
directories named "mystuff", PRIMOS would stop 
at the first one it found, so it was the user's
responsibility to specify partition names, if and
when it was required.

PARTITOM was designated "MFD 0",
PARTITON was designated "MFD 1", 
and so on.

In this scheme, each "PARTITON" was a root 
in a tree-structured file system.  A Master
File Directory was considered level zero.
User File Directories ("UFD") were considered
levels one thru N (no limit to depth).  
"FILENAME" was the trailing file (32-bytes max).
  
I have not worked on Unix (except only briefly), 
and I understand that its has a similar hierarchy, 
but with slash instead of the ">" sign.

I liked this nomenclature very much, because
the ">" sign signified superior and subordinate
relationships.  Thus, we can invent our own
nomenclature for menu option sequences, by
dispensing with the "->" and substituting ">"
in its place.

Confer at "Occam's razor" in Webster's dictionary.

What do you think?


/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com



At 05:38 AM 6/2/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 05:22 AM 6/2/97 -0700, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
> 
>>Is "Tools->Options->Immediate send" and the like
>>a standard of any kind for documenting menu actions?
>
>Pretty good question.  I don't know the answer.
>
>I am sure I have seen it somewhere.  But I can't remember off-hand.  I have
>been using it for several years.  Perhaps IBM used it with the OS/2
>manuals.  I no longer have access to them to look and see.
>
>
>Phil Daley     Relay Technology
>http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley
>
>
>
>
>

      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail