Nicholas -

Well, yeah, that much is pretty well known. From a programming point of
view, the reason they would have chosen a character other then the
switch character is as I mentioned earlier - it makes for a smaller
parser, when size was an issue.

But it doesn't explain which was chosen first ("/" is not the parameter
switch character in Unix - not sure about CPM or others) or why the
specific characters for either case were chosen.

Best,

Barry


Nicholas Bodley wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:19:50 -0400, i18n@... <i18n@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Nicholas Bodley wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well, it's pretty obscure info.; have seen it only a very few times,
>>>but it's memorable.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Yes it is memorable. Especially in the sw internationalization business,
>>[...]
>>
>>
>
>Okay, I got off my figurative duff and Googled Until Found.
>
>Google on ["forward slash" "directory separator" MS-DOS]; that gives a
>good number of hits. I stopped at the first one that had a decent
>description.
>
>One hit is
><http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=3389>
>
>Scroll down about 35%, and see
>
>"Because MS-DOS used the '/' for options, which it got from CP/M, which in
>turn got it from RX-11, which may have originated it. [...]"
>Following that, you'll see what I was fussing about. Author is Sean
>Conner, and he posted on Sunday, February 03, 2002.
>
>It's not the only such statement. MS-DOS is small enough for people to
>(illegally?) disassemble it, and discover this for themselves. Whether
>this is how most who know it found out, I doubt; word simply spread, I'd
>say.
>
>Apologies for all the computer detail; however, what's being discussed is
>the meaning of a weird and wondrous (okay, 20% "w. & w.") symbol.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]