Check null or 0

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by staeri@gmail.com, Feb 27, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I'm using the following code to create a sum:

    forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);

    This only works if "f.value" contains a number.

    Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    empty or contains text.

    Regards,

    S
     
    , Feb 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Matt Kruse Guest

    Matt Kruse, Feb 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jshanman Guest

    wrote:
    > I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >
    > forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);
    >
    > This only works if "f.value" contains a number.
    >
    > Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    > empty or contains text.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > S


    try this:

    forecast = forecast + parseInt(f.value);

    http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/jsref_parseInt.asp

    - JS
     
    jshanman, Feb 27, 2006
    #3
  4. web.dev Guest

    wrote:
    > I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >
    > forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);


    The use of eval is most often misused and unnecessary.

    Try the following to create your sum:

    forecast += +f.value;
     
    web.dev, Feb 27, 2006
    #4
  5. Evertjan. Guest

    wrote on 27 feb 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:

    > I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >
    > forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);
    >
    > This only works if "f.value" contains a number.
    >
    > Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    > empty or contains text.


    eval() is evil, and I see no reason why you are using it here.

    ===========

    If you mean the following:

    var forecast = 7
    var xxx = 8
    var yyy ='xxx'
    forecast = forecast + eval(yyy);
    alert(forecast) //15

    it is much better to use:

    var forecast = 7
    var xxx = 8
    var yyy ='xxx'
    forecast = forecast + window[yyy];
    alert(forecast) //15

    now what if xxx is not initialized or NaN:

    var forecast = 7
    var xxx
    var yyy = 'xxx'
    if (!window[yyy]||isNaN(window[yyy])) {
    var a = 0
    yyy = 'a'
    }
    forecast = forecast + window[yyy];
    alert(forecast) //7

    will this help?


    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
     
    Evertjan., Feb 27, 2006
    #5
  6. Randy Webb Guest

    said the following on 2/27/2006 1:30 PM:
    > I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >
    > forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);
    >
    > This only works if "f.value" contains a number.
    >
    > Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    > empty or contains text.


    Simple. Drop the eval:

    forecast = forecast + f.value;

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, Feb 28, 2006
    #6
  7. VK Guest

    wrote:
    > I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >
    > forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);
    >
    > This only works if "f.value" contains a number.
    >
    > Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    > empty or contains text.


    forecast += +(f.value)||0;

    P.S. I decided to participate in the squeezcrypt rally :) I did not
    play squeezcrypt for rather long so just cheking my fingers are stll
    flexible :)

    The decrypter version (if someone curious) is:

    var n = parseInt(f.value, 10);
    if (isNaN(n)) {
    forecast += 0;
    }
    else {
    forecast += n;
    }
     
    VK, Feb 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Jonas Raoni Guest

    VK wrote:
    > forecast += +(f.value)||0;


    There's no need for the parenthesis.

    > P.S. I decided to participate in the squeezcrypt rally :) I did not
    > play squeezcrypt for rather long so just cheking my fingers are stll
    > flexible :)

    [...]
    > The decrypter version (if someone curious) is:


    I saw a lot of people criticizing you here, I thought they just hated
    you, but after reading this message I can see they are totally right
    hahaha ;]


    --
    Jonas Raoni Soares Silva
    http://www.jsfromhell.com
     
    Jonas Raoni, Feb 28, 2006
    #8
  9. VK Guest

    Jonas Raoni wrote:
    > VK wrote:
    > > forecast += +(f.value)||0;

    >
    > There's no need for the parenthesis.


    Right.

    forecast+=+f.value||0;

    As I said I did not play squeezcrypt for a while :)


    > I saw a lot of people criticizing you here, I thought they just hated
    > you, but after reading this message I can see they are totally right
    > hahaha ;]


    Oh boy, did we get hurt? :-( ;-)
    I thought there were enough of smilies in my post to prevent that -
    plus nothing personal.

    So what the exact reason of *your* hate is? That I explained what did
    forecast+=+f.value||0;
    do and mean?

    It's hard to believe, I know, but it is not so obvious at all to an
    average user. Plus some people may prefer to use the conventional
    isNaN() check so I thought necessary to mention it.
     
    VK, Feb 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Jonas Raoni Guest

    VK wrote:
    > Jonas Raoni wrote:
    >>I saw a lot of people criticizing you here, I thought they just hated
    >>you, but after reading this message I can see they are totally right
    >>hahaha ;]

    >
    > Oh boy, did we get hurt? :-( ;-)


    Hahahaha, no! We'll never get hurt, this isn't an arena, but a place to
    spend some free time, I don't take anything personally ;]

    Even disliking such unuseful discussions, I can't resist to my agressive
    instinct, so if you can, stop this thread by not answering, it's already
    over, the question got an answer =]

    > So what the exact reason of *your* hate is? That I explained what did
    > forecast+=+f.value||0;
    > do and mean?


    Yeah, that's the reason, explaining how the script works looks idiot for
    me, I explain only if the person asks for explanation.

    > It's hard to believe, I know, but it is not so obvious at all to an
    > average user. Plus some people may prefer to use the conventional
    > isNaN() check so I thought necessary to mention it.


    You're right, but explaining the script is a kind of insult for the
    idiot people like me haha. I assume everybody has a nice knowledge about
    the language, so nothing needs explanation.


    --
    Jonas Raoni Soares Silva
    http://www.jsfromhell.com
     
    Jonas Raoni, Feb 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Jonas Raoni wrote:
    > VK wrote:
    >> forecast += +(f.value)||0;

    >
    > There's no need for the parenthesis.
    >
    >> P.S. I decided to participate in the squeezcrypt rally :)
    >> I did not play squeezcrypt for rather long so just cheking
    >> my fingers are stll flexible :)

    > [...]
    >> The decrypter version (if someone curious) is:

    >
    > I saw a lot of people criticizing you here,
    > I thought they just hated you,


    It isn't hatred, it isn't even personal. VK posts absolute rubbish to
    the group; fictional explanations, worst possible advice and error
    filled/catastrophically poor code that he doesn't even understand
    himself. He will be corrected and criticised for doing that, anyone
    would. However, the tone of those criticisms has changed over time
    because no matter how much effort you put into correcting, explaining
    and demonstrating why he is mistaken he refuses to believe anything that
    originates outside of his own head and caries on re-posting repetitions
    of the same rubbish again and again.

    The effect of this is doubly bad for the group as individuals suffer
    from his advice and others have to expend effort futilely correcting his
    nonsense, preventing them form rendering a direct service to others (due
    the limited availability of time).

    > but after reading this message I can see they are totally
    > right hahaha ;]


    Yes, although VK believes himself to be the ultimate arbiter of
    javascript knowledge he doesn't actually know that his "decrypter"
    version does not do the same as the first version. It is a knowledge
    shortfall that he cannot see for himself as that would mean recognising
    that his arrogant self-confidence in what he believes to be his own
    superior understanding of javascript is fictitious.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, Mar 1, 2006
    #11
  12. JRS: In article <>, dated Mon, 27 Feb
    2006 20:40:34 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Randy Webb
    <> posted :
    > said the following on 2/27/2006 1:30 PM:
    >> I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >>
    >> forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);
    >>
    >> This only works if "f.value" contains a number.
    >>
    >> Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    >> empty or contains text.

    >
    >Simple. Drop the eval:
    >
    >forecast = forecast + f.value;


    Generally, a .value is a string. Your code will then concatenate, even
    if the string is numeric.

    --
    © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
    <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
    <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
    <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
     
    Dr John Stockton, Mar 1, 2006
    #12
  13. Randy Webb Guest

    Dr John Stockton said the following on 3/1/2006 12:41 PM:
    > JRS: In article <>, dated Mon, 27 Feb
    > 2006 20:40:34 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Randy Webb
    > <> posted :
    >> said the following on 2/27/2006 1:30 PM:
    >>> I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >>>
    >>> forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);
    >>>
    >>> This only works if "f.value" contains a number.
    >>>
    >>> Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    >>> empty or contains text.

    >> Simple. Drop the eval:
    >>
    >> forecast = forecast + f.value;

    >
    > Generally, a .value is a string.


    The value of a form element is always a string. And the code implies
    form elements but it could just as well be an array in which case the
    ..value is not needed and can be counter-productive.

    > Your code will then concatenate, even if the string is numeric.


    You don't say? Well guess what Doc, that is what the OP asked for!

    Let me quote part of the original post that you, and everybody else,
    that replied seemed to miss:

    <quote>
    Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    empty or contains text.
    </quote>

    The *only* way to "add" text is to concatenate. And everybody else,
    especially you, got caught up in converting strings to numbers and
    didn't bother to read the post thoroughly. Had you done so, and not been
    in such a haste to correct me in particular, you wouldn't even have
    posted a reply to me.

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, Mar 2, 2006
    #13
  14. RobG Guest

    Randy Webb wrote:
    > Dr John Stockton said the following on 3/1/2006 12:41 PM:
    >
    >> JRS: In article <>, dated Mon, 27 Feb
    >> 2006 20:40:34 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Randy Webb
    >> <> posted :
    >>
    >>> said the following on 2/27/2006 1:30 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >>>>
    >>>> forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);
    >>>>
    >>>> This only works if "f.value" contains a number.
    >>>>
    >>>> Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    >>>> empty or contains text.
    >>>
    >>> Simple. Drop the eval:
    >>>
    >>> forecast = forecast + f.value;

    >>
    >>
    >> Generally, a .value is a string.

    >
    >
    > The value of a form element is always a string. And the code implies
    > form elements but it could just as well be an array in which case the
    > .value is not needed and can be counter-productive.
    >
    >> Your code will then concatenate, even if the string is numeric.

    >
    >
    > You don't say? Well guess what Doc, that is what the OP asked for!
    >
    > Let me quote part of the original post that you, and everybody else,
    > that replied seemed to miss:
    >
    > <quote>
    > Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    > empty or contains text.
    > </quote>


    I think the real problem is that the OP never stipulated any criteria
    for 'works'. Yours is one possible interpretation, there are others.
    The OP's statement that:

    "I'm using the following code to create a sum:"


    might be taken as a hint that arithmetic addition was required.

    The use of eval is another hint as its effect on a string consisting
    solely of digits is to convert it to a type number, but if the string
    contains any other characters it will return an error.

    It is understandable that you discounted that when interpreting the OP's
    intentions as the consequences of eval's use are almost never understood
    by those who post examples of it here (i.e. the OP didn't understand the
    consequences, I'm certain that you do).


    To the OP, if lurking:

    eval will convert a number that is a string to a JavaScript 'primitive'
    number, e.g.

    var x = '5'; // the value of x is type string
    x = eval(x); // the value of x is now type number


    However:

    var x = '5px';
    x = eval(x); // Error: missing ; before statement


    eval is a black box, the error messages emanating from it are usually
    bizarre and useless for debugging. It has other unwelcome consequences
    (search the archives) - just don't use eval.

    Other posts in this thread have offered good solutions.


    [...]



    --
    Rob
     
    RobG, Mar 2, 2006
    #14
  15. Randy Webb Guest

    RobG said the following on 3/1/2006 8:19 PM:
    > Randy Webb wrote:
    >> Dr John Stockton said the following on 3/1/2006 12:41 PM:
    >>
    >>> JRS: In article <>, dated Mon, 27 Feb
    >>> 2006 20:40:34 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Randy Webb
    >>> <> posted :
    >>>
    >>>> said the following on 2/27/2006 1:30 PM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This only works if "f.value" contains a number.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    >>>>> empty or contains text.
    >>>>
    >>>> Simple. Drop the eval:
    >>>>
    >>>> forecast = forecast + f.value;
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Generally, a .value is a string.

    >>
    >>
    >> The value of a form element is always a string. And the code implies
    >> form elements but it could just as well be an array in which case the
    >> .value is not needed and can be counter-productive.
    >>
    >>> Your code will then concatenate, even if the string is numeric.

    >>
    >>
    >> You don't say? Well guess what Doc, that is what the OP asked for!
    >>
    >> Let me quote part of the original post that you, and everybody else,
    >> that replied seemed to miss:
    >>
    >> <quote>
    >> Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    >> empty or contains text.
    >> </quote>

    >
    > I think the real problem is that the OP never stipulated any criteria
    > for 'works'. Yours is one possible interpretation, there are others.


    Yes, and given the entirety of the post, I made my interpretation.
    Rather than seeing the differences in interpretations, John does as John
    typically does and tries to be pedantic. John can go Fornicate Under
    Consent of King with himself for all I care :)

    > The OP's statement that:
    >
    > "I'm using the following code to create a sum:"
    >
    >
    > might be taken as a hint that arithmetic addition was required.


    It could also be taken as a hint that concatenation is being
    used/desired as in "adding things together" in the sense of strings.

    > The use of eval is another hint as its effect on a string consisting
    > solely of digits is to convert it to a type number, but if the string
    > contains any other characters it will return an error.


    eval's use is typically nothing more than a hint of the ignorance of the
    person using it. Nothing more, nothing less.

    > It is understandable that you discounted that when interpreting the OP's
    > intentions as the consequences of eval's use are almost never understood
    > by those who post examples of it here (i.e. the OP didn't understand the
    > consequences, I'm certain that you do).


    Precisely. And given the ambiguity of "a sum", the context of "I want it
    to work if it contains text" leaves me to assume its string
    concatenation and dropping the use of eval from the original code does
    precisely that.

    >
    > To the OP, if lurking:
    >
    > eval will convert a number that is a string to a JavaScript 'primitive'
    > number, e.g.
    >
    > var x = '5'; // the value of x is type string
    > x = eval(x); // the value of x is now type number
    >
    > However:
    >
    > var x = '5px';
    > x = eval(x); // Error: missing ; before statement


    Which browser? None of mine throw any error at all, nothing:

    IE6, Firefox, Mozilla, and Opera 7/8/9

    But, adding an alert before and after the eval call does some odd
    things. All give the initial alert (naturally) but none of them give the
    second alert:

    var x = "5px";
    alert(x);
    x = eval (x);
    alert(x);

    >
    > eval is a black box, the error messages emanating from it are usually
    > bizarre and useless for debugging. It has other unwelcome consequences
    > (search the archives) - just don't use eval.


    If you get the error messages at all :-\

    > Other posts in this thread have offered good solutions.


    Only if its addition and not string concatenation that is wanted :)


    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
     
    Randy Webb, Mar 2, 2006
    #15
  16. RobG Guest

    Randy Webb wrote:
    > RobG said the following on 3/1/2006 8:19 PM:

    [...]

    >> However:
    >>
    >> var x = '5px';
    >> x = eval(x); // Error: missing ; before statement

    >
    >
    > Which browser? None of mine throw any error at all, nothing:
    >
    > IE6, Firefox, Mozilla, and Opera 7/8/9


    For me, Firefox 1.5.0.1 and IE: 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.050301-1526
    (amazingly the IE error is pretty similar to the Firefox error).

    The error string posted is copied directly from Firefox's JavaScript
    console. IE shows an error the first time the page is loaded, using
    re-load makes it go away.


    > But, adding an alert before and after the eval call does some odd
    > things. All give the initial alert (naturally) but none of them give the
    > second alert:
    >
    > var x = "5px";
    > alert(x);
    > x = eval (x);
    > alert(x);


    Because of the error I guess - why you don't see it is a mystery. :-(


    >> eval is a black box, the error messages emanating from it are usually
    >> bizarre and useless for debugging. It has other unwelcome consequences
    >> (search the archives) - just don't use eval.

    >
    >
    > If you get the error messages at all :-\
    >
    >> Other posts in this thread have offered good solutions.

    >
    >
    > Only if its addition and not string concatenation that is wanted :)


    I thought your post covered that. ;-)



    --
    Rob
     
    RobG, Mar 2, 2006
    #16
  17. RobG wrote:

    > eval will convert a number that is a string to a JavaScript 'primitive'
    > number, e.g.
    >
    > var x = '5'; // the value of x is type string
    > x = eval(x); // the value of x is now type number


    However, there are occasions where eval() returns `undefined' even though
    the passed expression would evaluate to a different value.

    > However:
    >
    > var x = '5px';
    > x = eval(x); // Error: missing ; before statement
    >
    >
    > eval is a black box, the error messages emanating from it are usually
    > bizarre

    ^^^^^^^
    That is, if I may say so, VK-ish wording ;-) The error message above, for
    example, is not bizarre at all if you understand the language, and how its
    tokenizer works (all described in the ECMAScript specifications). AIUI, 5
    is considered a NumericLiteral because only `px' is what qualifies as an
    Identifier here (which MUST NOT start with a decimal digit according to the
    specs), and is therefore considered the statement (produced by `Statement
    --> ... --> PrimaryExpression : Identifier'). `5;px', as indicated by the
    error message, would not make much sense and could even qualify as being
    bizarre, but it is _syntactically correct_; `5px' is _not_.

    > and useless for debugging.


    Quite the contrary. eval() can be used for debugging in combination with
    the proprietary `onerror' handler when exception handling with try...catch
    is not available. Venkman, and the MS Script Debugger can debug eval()
    code quite well.

    > It has other unwelcome consequences (search the archives) - just don't
    > use eval.


    .... if you can avoid it. As you can (and should) here, by using

    x = parseInt(x, 10); // or parseFloat(...)

    instead. Which is an appropriate, but still not sufficient answer to
    the OP's request "that it also works if 'f.value' is empty or contains
    text." Because NaN to which (the more efficient, but not fully backwards
    compatible) `+f.value' evaluates then is hardly useful.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Mar 2, 2006
    #17
  18. RobG Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > RobG wrote:
    >
    >
    >>eval will convert a number that is a string to a JavaScript 'primitive'
    >>number, e.g.
    >>
    >> var x = '5'; // the value of x is type string
    >> x = eval(x); // the value of x is now type number

    >
    >
    > However, there are occasions where eval() returns `undefined' even though
    > the passed expression would evaluate to a different value.


    The point is that although eval() 'works' for the OP in one particular
    case, it has unwanted results in others. When the above is taken in
    context with the paragraphs that followed, your statement is in
    accordance with that - rather than 'however', you could have used 'and
    also...'.


    >>However:
    >>
    >> var x = '5px';
    >> x = eval(x); // Error: missing ; before statement
    >>
    >>
    >>eval is a black box, the error messages emanating from it are usually
    >>bizarre

    >
    > ^^^^^^^
    > That is, if I may say so, VK-ish wording ;-)


    Eeek! :-o


    > The error message above, for
    > example, is not bizarre at all if you understand the language,


    Working backwards to create an explanation of the outcome is called
    '20/20 hindsight'. It is being able to work forward and say with
    certainty what the outcome *will* be that counts.

    This statement seems at odds with the the one further up:

    "there are occasions where eval() returns `undefined' even
    though the passed expression would evaluate to a different
    value."

    which seems to agree with my characterisation - although 'bizarre' might
    have been a bit strong. :)


    [...]

    >>and useless for debugging.

    >
    >
    > Quite the contrary. eval() can be used for debugging in combination with
    > the proprietary `onerror' handler when exception handling with try...catch
    > is not available.


    I was talking about debugging code that includes the use of eval, not
    that eval is completely useless for debugging.


    [...]


    --
    Rob
     
    RobG, Mar 2, 2006
    #18
  19. JRS: In article <>, dated Wed, 1 Mar
    2006 19:42:42 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Randy Webb
    <> posted :
    >Dr John Stockton said the following on 3/1/2006 12:41 PM:
    >> JRS: In article <>, dated Mon, 27 Feb
    >> 2006 20:40:34 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Randy Webb
    >> <> posted :
    >>> said the following on 2/27/2006 1:30 PM:
    >>>> I'm using the following code to create a sum:
    >>>>
    >>>> forecast = forecast + eval(f.value);
    >>>>
    >>>> This only works if "f.value" contains a number.
    >>>>
    >>>> Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    >>>> empty or contains text.
    >>> Simple. Drop the eval:
    >>>
    >>> forecast = forecast + f.value;

    >>
    >> Generally, a .value is a string.

    >
    >The value of a form element is always a string.


    Agreed that the .value is a string, though a drop-down list might be
    said to have a selected value. But a .value is not necessarily a form
    element; hence the "Generally,".

    >And the code implies
    >form elements


    Not inevitably. Probably, though, the OP does want to sum the values of
    form elements.. But, in writing "Generally, a .value is a string.", I
    was of course referring to the generality of .value, not just what the
    OP probably had in mind. Have you considered attending an EFL course?


    > but it could just as well be an array in which case the
    >.value is not needed and can be counter-productive.
    >
    >> Your code will then concatenate, even if the string is numeric.

    >
    >You don't say? Well guess what Doc, that is what the OP asked for!


    He asked explicitly for a sum. Summation is not concatenation.

    >Let me quote part of the original post that you, and everybody else,
    >that replied seemed to miss:
    >
    ><quote>
    >Can someone please help me so that it also works if "f.value" is
    >empty or contains text.
    ></quote>
    >
    >The *only* way to "add" text is to concatenate.


    No, he might want non-numeric text to count as zero. Also, "contains
    text" applies not only to "cat" but to "99dog", in which case
    interpretation as +99 seems probably wanted (and parseInt(,) can be
    used). It also applies to "Price $99" in which case one might prefer to
    extract the digits with a RegExp.

    > And everybody else,
    >especially you, got caught up in converting strings to numbers and
    >didn't bother to read the post thoroughly. Had you done so, and not been
    >in such a haste to correct me in particular, you wouldn't even have
    >posted a reply to me.


    When I read it, I saw, and understood, the word "sum". YWII, RBTD.

    --
    © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
    Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
    Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
     
    Dr John Stockton, Mar 2, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kivak Wolf
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    10,118
    Kivak Wolf
    Jun 28, 2005
  2. vizlab
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,270
    Michael Bar-Sinai
    Oct 17, 2007
  3. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    27,540
    Mike Schilling
    Mar 29, 2006
  4. G Fernandes
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    627
    DHOLLINGSWORTH2
    Feb 27, 2005
  5. Mike
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    744
    Daniel Pitts
    Sep 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page