Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!uci-ics!ucla-cs!wales From: wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: which archiver/compresser and encoder/decoder to use? Message-ID: <32123@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 21 Feb 90 04:41:39 GMT References: <36517@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU Reply-To: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles Lines: 38 In article <36517@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: david@csource.oz.au (david nugent) <74.25E169A8@csource.oz.au> : - > > xxencode/xxdecode - -Where can one obtain theses? Around here they say you have to write your own... :-) Lest anyone might miss Bob's joke, prompted by David's innocent typo, and conclude that the "XX" programs are not available: Get file PD1:XXCP.ARC (151K bytes) from SIMTEL20. I was able to compile the XXENCODE.C and XXDECODE.C sources from this file on my Sun-3 workstation (running SunOS 4.0) without change. Essentially, the only difference between XXENCODE and UUENCODE is that, whereas UUENCODE uses the following character output function -- #define ENC(c) (((c) & 077) + ' ') -- XXENCODE uses the following function -- #define ENC(c) ( set[ (c) & 077 ] ) static char set[] = "+-0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"; Except for the character set used, the two programs are identical. I would strongly recommend, by the way, that we switch from UUENCODE to XXENCODE. It is a trivial sacrifice for the majority of us to pay so that the minority who are stuck behind ASCII-munging BITNET machines can have a chance to use the material in this newsgroup. -- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (213) 825-5683 "Then they hurl heavy objects. . . . And claw at you. . . ."