graham(_dot_)travers(_at_)BT(_dot_)COM wrote:
In my, limited, coding experience, I don't recall finding ASCII diagrams as
part of the code. Poor diagrammatic capability is one of the problems I
have with ASCII.
Oh, ASCII art. I dunno; I've never used it. It's often not very useful; it's
nice for packet formats, but a lot of the time I think it's done because people
believe pictures are better, and ASCII art is the only pictures they can make.
If you really can't do without it, check out
<http://www.sigsoftware.com/emaileffects/> (Mac and Windows) or
pbmtoascii (Unix).
You previous point about people choosing to use a "copy
that's easier for some people to read" is interesting. Doesn't it imply
that we should consider other formats ?
Argh. My point was *exactly* the opposite: that, when there exist multiple
formats, it is likely that some of them will be wrong; therefore, the only safe
approach is to have exactly one format.
<plonk>
--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp. |Round up the usual disclaimers. |
|francis(_at_)ecal(_dot_)com| |
\==============================================================/