Returned Network Mail

Sun, 6 Nov 88 11:40 EST

Comment: forwarded by CRNLNS/FMAIL v2.0
Comment: REPLY may not work.
Comment: Network-Source: _LNS61::SYSTEM (HEPnet/SPAN)
Comment: Originally-From: POSTMASTER
Comment: Originally-To: EDU%"SRA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU"

Your mail is being returned to you.
Reason for return is:
%MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening SYS$COMMON:[SYSMGR.MAIL]MAIL$00040091B741871C.MAI
-RMS-E-CRE, ACP file create failed
-SYSTEM-W-DIRALLOC, allocation failure on directory file
Returned mail follows:
Received: From BYUADMIN(MAILER) by CRNLNS with Jnet id 9437
          for for SYSTEM@CRNLNS; Sun, 6 Nov 88 11:39 EST
Received: by BYUADMIN (Mailer R2.01) id 9415; Sun, 06 Nov 88 05:14:58 MST
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 88 19:22:00 EST
Sender: "(TCP-IP ARPA Discussions)" <Sender: "(TCP-IP ARPA Discussions)" <TCPIP-L@BYUADMIN>
From: Rob Austein <SRA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: ^O in EMACS
X-To: Merton Campbell Crockett <mcc@ETN-WLV.EATON.COM>
X-cc: tcp-ip@SRI-NIC.ARPA
To: "(no name)" <To: "(no name)" <SYSTEM@CRNLNS>
In-Reply-To: Msg of 1 Nov 1988 18:01-EST from mcc@ETN-WLV.EATON.COM (Merton
              Campbell Crockett)

    Date: Tuesday, 1 November 1988 18:01-EST
    From: mcc@ETN-WLV.EATON.COM (Merton Campbell Crockett)

    Thanks to everyone who responded and informed me the function of
    ^O; however, the question was more specifically "why?". In a
    rhetorical vein, why does EMACS, in general, use standard control
    characters as application dependent function characters? Why
    would any application?

Ancient history, mostly.

Keep in mind that the original EMACS was a set of TECO macros (hence
the name Editor MACroS) on the MIT Incompatible Timesharing System.
ITS has a long tradition of doing nonstandard things with control
characters, eg, to most ITS programs other than EMACS (which has so
many commands that RMS had to use every possible key combination):

    ^C = EOF;
    ^D = Discard (punt the line currently being entered);
    ^S = Shutup (stop tty output);
    ^Q = Quote (quote the next character).

You expect conformity on a system where the command processor is a
souped-up assembly language debugger?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:44:30 GMT