[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: Loading configuration files in an OS-agnostic way

Gavri Savio Fernandez

12/18/2004 10:52:00 AM


> From: Michael DeHaan [mailto:michael.dehaan@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: Loading configuration files in an OS-agnostic way

> "But this doesn't solve the problem because the user should be able to
> create and swap configuration files using the default shell."
>
> The shell works. Only Explorer is broken.
>
> c:\> echo foo > .bar
> c:\> dir

Ah... I was referring to Windows Explorer as the default shell. But the fact that it works from the command prompt will do.
Thanks.

gavri

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message, including any attachments, contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorized disclosure, use, dissemination, copying, or distribution of this message or any of its attachments or the information contained in this e-mail, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message.
13 Answers

Mike stone

7/15/2008 7:16:00 PM

0




"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcentury@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-C20DC4.18440114072008@news.isp.giganews.com...
> bm2617@eve.albany.edu wrote:
>
>
> NM was very thinly populated in 1850, even
> compared to northern Mexico. Statehood
> would be delayed, but more for racial/religious
> reasons. OTOH if Taylor is elected he would
> push for quick statehood, as he did for CA -
> because the territory is already settled, and
> the Army shouldn't be saddled with governing it.
>




Indeed, I wonder if there would even _be_ a New Mexico Territory in this
situation.

I get a mental picture of a "Utah Territory" with a southern border around
35N, and below that a "Sonora" including also Baja California and the
remainder of OTL Arizona, and a "Chihuahua" taking in also the Texas
Panhandle and a similar area of NM. If it werw done thta way, earlier
statehood might make sense. Certainly, if the Civil War still began on
schedule, those Mexican territories favourable to the Union might well get
speedy admission.

--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Q) In the Roman Civil Wars, why did all the bachelors fight for Sulla?

A) Because they weren't the Marian kind.

Rich Rostrom

7/16/2008 4:07:00 AM

0

"Mike stone" <mwstone@aol.com> wrote:

>Indeed, I wonder if there would even _be_ a New Mexico Territory in this
>situation.
>
>I get a mental picture of a "Utah Territory" with a southern border around
>35N, and below that a "Sonora" including also Baja California and the
>remainder of OTL Arizona, and a "Chihuahua" taking in also the Texas
>Panhandle and a similar area of NM.

These are way too large. The area
of the OTL Mexican Cession, except
CA, was too unpopulated for statehood,
and there is an upper limit to how big
a territory could be.

Also Texas would not give up that much
of its claimed territory. OTL the U.S.
had to lean on Texas to prevent them
claiming all NM east of the Rio Grande.
--
| People say "There's a Stradivarius for sale for a |
| million," and you say "Oh, really? What's wrong |
| with it?" - Yitzhak Perlman |

Mike stone

7/16/2008 6:21:00 AM

0



"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcentury@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-060447.23072415072008@news.isp.giganews.com...
> "Mike stone" <mwstone@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Indeed, I wonder if there would even _be_ a New Mexico Territory in this
> >situation.
> >
> >I get a mental picture of a "Utah Territory" with a southern border
around
> >35N, and below that a "Sonora" including also Baja California and the
> >remainder of OTL Arizona, and a "Chihuahua" taking in also the Texas
> >Panhandle and a similar area of NM.
>
> These are way too large. The area
> of the OTL Mexican Cession, except
> CA, was too unpopulated for statehood,
> and there is an upper limit to how big
> a territory could be.


A _legal_ upper limit? Any idea what it was?

And I'd have thought territorial boundaries could get drawn quite broadly
when so much of the acreage is just desert. After all, given current
population figures, the entire southern half of Arizona might be just one
county.




>
> Also Texas would not give up that much
> of its claimed territory. OTL the U.S.
> had to lean on Texas to prevent them
> claiming all NM east of the Rio Grande.

Did Texas actually get a _choice_ about how much it gave up? Even as was, it
got a good deal more land than the RoT had ever actually controlled.

Incidentally, any thoughts on how all this impinges on the Compromise of
1850? With all this additional territory, much of it more suitable for
slavery than OTL New Mexico, will the North be so willing to go along with
Popular Sovereignty? Does the deal break down and the Civil War come under
Fillmore instead of Lincoln?

Also, what are the rules likely to be about the franchise in territorial
elections? If the vote is limited to "whites", who exactly counts as white
in Chihuahua or Sinaloa? Or will the existing franchise (whatever that was
under Mexican law) continue to operate until changed by Congress - which
might take quite a while if Congress is badly deadlocked?

--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Q) In the Roman Civil Wars, why did all the bachelors fight for Sulla?

A) Because they weren't the Marian kind.

|

Rich Rostrom

7/16/2008 5:13:00 PM

0

In article <6e5iavF5e4euU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Mike stone" <mwstone@aol.com> wrote:

>"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcentury@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:rrostrom.21stcentury-060447.23072415072008@news.isp.giganews.com...
>> "Mike stone" <mwstone@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Indeed, I wonder if there would even _be_ a New Mexico Territory in this
>> >situation.
>> >
>> >I get a mental picture of a "Utah Territory" with a southern border
>around
>> >35N, and below that a "Sonora" including also Baja California and the
>> >remainder of OTL Arizona, and a "Chihuahua" taking in also the Texas
>> >Panhandle and a similar area of NM.
>>
>> These are way too large. The area
>> of the OTL Mexican Cession, except
>> CA, was too unpopulated for statehood,
>> and there is an upper limit to how big
>> a territory could be.
>
>A _legal_ upper limit?

No, of course not.

A _practical_ limit, based on the fact that
a Territorial government had to provide
certain services throughout its area.

Some immense territories were established
at times (Nebraska, Dakota, Oregon), but all
were broken up to more reasonable dimensions
when there was any settlement.
>
>And I'd have thought territorial boundaries could get drawn quite broadly
>when so much of the acreage is just desert. After all, given current
>population figures, the entire southern half of Arizona might be just one
>county.
>

It was two counties. See

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/261-the-civil-war-and-the-death-of-hori...

>> Also Texas would not give up that much
>> of its claimed territory. OTL the U.S.
>> had to lean on Texas to prevent them
>> claiming all NM east of the Rio Grande.
>
>Did Texas actually get a _choice_ about how much it gave up?

Not really. OTOH, the U.S. was not going
to slice and dice Texas at will either:
Texas had many friends in Congress.

>Incidentally, any thoughts on how all this impinges on the Compromise of
>1850? With all this additional territory, much of it more suitable for
>slavery than OTL New Mexico, will the North be so willing to go along with
>Popular Sovereignty?

With this extra territory already open to slavery,
will the South push for pop sov in Kansas?

>Also, what are the rules likely to be about the franchise in territorial
>elections? If the vote is limited to "whites", who exactly counts as white
>in Chihuahua or Sinaloa? Or will the existing franchise (whatever that was
>under Mexican law) continue to operate until changed by Congress - which
>might take quite a while if Congress is badly deadlocked?

AFAIK, there was no explicit rule disfranchising
Mexicans in TX or CA, and certainly not in NM.
I don't see how such a law could be enacted and
imposed in a populous Mexican region S of the Rio
Grande.

One detail. Mexico, unlike the U.S., has a large
population of assimilated Indians. That is, there
are a lot of people who are Catholic, farmers,
Spanish-speaking - have completely given up Indian
ways, are no longer distinguished by 'tribe' - but
are still recognizably Indian. There were a few such
in the U.S., who were disfranchised till insignficant.
That won't work here.
--
| People say "There's a Stradivarius for sale for a |
| million," and you say "Oh, really? What's wrong |
| with it?" - Yitzhak Perlman |

Jack Linthicum

7/16/2008 6:06:00 PM

0

On Jul 16, 1:13 pm, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
> In article <6e5iavF5e4e...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Mike stone" <mwst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >news:rrostrom.21stcentury-060447.23072415072008@news.isp.giganews.com...
> >> "Mike stone" <mwst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Indeed, I wonder if there would even _be_ a New Mexico Territory in this
> >> >situation.
>
> >> >I get a mental picture of a "Utah Territory" with a southern border
> >around
> >> >35N, and below that a "Sonora" including also Baja California and the
> >> >remainder of OTL Arizona, and a "Chihuahua" taking in also the Texas
> >> >Panhandle and a similar area of NM.
>
> >> These are way too large. The area
> >> of the OTL Mexican Cession, except
> >> CA, was too unpopulated for statehood,
> >> and there is an upper limit to how big
> >> a territory could be.
>
> >A _legal_ upper limit?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> A _practical_ limit, based on the fact that
> a Territorial government had to provide
> certain services throughout its area.
>
> Some immense territories were established
> at times (Nebraska, Dakota, Oregon), but all
> were broken up to more reasonable dimensions
> when there was any settlement.
>
>
>
> >And I'd have thought territorial boundaries could get drawn quite broadly
> >when so much of the acreage is just desert. After all, given current
> >population figures, the entire southern half of Arizona might be just one
> >county.
>
> It was two counties. See
>
> http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/261-the-civil-w......
>
> >> Also Texas would not give up that much
> >> of its claimed territory. OTL the U.S.
> >> had to lean on Texas to prevent them
> >> claiming all NM east of the Rio Grande.
>
> >Did Texas actually get a _choice_ about how much it gave up?
>
> Not really. OTOH, the U.S. was not going
> to slice and dice Texas at will either:
> Texas had many friends in Congress.
>
> >Incidentally, any thoughts on how all this impinges on the Compromise of
> >1850? With all this additional territory, much of it more suitable for
> >slavery than OTL New Mexico, will the North be so willing to go along with
> >Popular Sovereignty?
>
> With this extra territory already open to slavery,
> will the South push for pop sov in Kansas?
>
> >Also, what are the rules likely to be about the franchise in territorial
> >elections? If the vote is limited to "whites", who exactly counts as white
> >in Chihuahua or Sinaloa? Or will the existing franchise (whatever that was
> >under Mexican law) continue to operate until changed by Congress - which
> >might take quite a while if Congress is badly deadlocked?
>
> AFAIK, there was no explicit rule disfranchising
> Mexicans in TX or CA, and certainly not in NM.
> I don't see how such a law could be enacted and
> imposed in a populous Mexican region S of the Rio
> Grande.
>
> One detail. Mexico, unlike the U.S., has a large
> population of assimilated Indians. That is, there
> are a lot of people who are Catholic, farmers,
> Spanish-speaking - have completely given up Indian
> ways, are no longer distinguished by 'tribe' - but
> are still recognizably Indian. There were a few such
> in the U.S., who were disfranchised till insignficant.
> That won't work here.
> --
> | People say "There's a Stradivarius for sale for a |
> | million," and you say "Oh, really? What's wrong |
> | with it?" - Yitzhak Perlman |

In California it was the "Mexican" called Californios who wanted the
Americans or somebody to take over the management of the few laws
available. The central government in Mexico city, whether Spanish or
Mexican, usually sent some clown to Monterey or San Diego who looked
upon his post as an imperial one. The portrayal of the "alcalde" in
the Zorro movies is not far off the line.

The Horny Goat

7/17/2008 5:19:00 AM

0

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:44:01 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.21stcentury@rcn.com> wrote:

>>If somebody in Mexico gets the bright idea
>>of looking for a European monarch, would Maxmillian get the nod when
>>the US border is so much closer to Mexico city?
>
>Unless there an ACW, that project is right out.

On the other hand, in this scenario you might get Canada being created
about 15 years earlier than in OTL. Those Mexican territories plus CA
/ AZ / NM / WY / CO make up roughly 65-70% of pre-war Mexico - which
would definitely have put the fear of God both in the British Foreign
Office and in the British North American colonies. Macdonald and Brown
were still leading players in Upper Canada (OTL Ontario) in 1850 but
it would have taken a LOT more effort from Westminster to bring about
a colonial union than in 1867.

Mike stone

7/17/2008 6:39:00 AM

0


"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcentury@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-50CBEC.12130316072008@news.isp.giganews.com...
>
> A _practical_ limit, based on the fact that
> a Territorial government had to provide
> certain services throughout its area.
>
> Some immense territories were established
> at times (Nebraska, Dakota, Oregon), but all
> were broken up to more reasonable dimensions
> when there was any settlement.


OTOH, on checking I find that the area of Chihuahua State is only 244,958 sq
km, compared with 295,254 for the State of Arizona.

That makes a territory of NM/Chihuahua somewhat _smaller_ than the OTL
territory of NM/Arizona as it was 1853-63. Even adding the Texas Panhandle
would be more than offset by a transfer of the northern third or so of NM
into Utah Territory.

I agree that Sonora/Baja /Arizona is a bit unwieldy (though only slightly
bigger than the OTL State of California). A possible alternative might be to
keep Baja separate, and give it a bit more population by shifting _its_
boundary to 35N as well, so that it gets some of the Southern California
"cow counties". California itself might be compensated with a generous slice
of OTL/Nevada.

[snip]


>OTOH, the U.S. was not going
> to slice and dice Texas at will either:
> Texas had many friends in Congress.
>

OTOOH, in Freehling's _Secessionists at Bay_ (Vol 1 of _The Road to
Disunion_) it is mentioned that one of Clay's 1850 proposals was to divide
Texas north-south along the latitude of El Paso, with the northern part
going into New Mexico. That would have been a "slice and dice" far more
drastic than anything I suggest.

The South, of course, held up its hands in horror, and the proposal failed.
In hindsight, this turned out to be an unfortunate victory, as a New Mexico
thus enlarged would have been both a good bet for early statehood, _and_ a
near certainty to become a slaveholding state.

--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

Q) In the Roman Civil Wars, why did all the bachelors fight for Sulla?

A) Because they weren't the Marian kind.

Jack Linthicum

7/17/2008 10:26:00 AM

0

On Jul 17, 1:18 am, The Horny Goat <lcra...@home.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:44:01 -0500, Rich Rostrom
>
> <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >>If somebody in Mexico gets the bright idea
> >>of looking for a European monarch, would Maxmillian get the nod when
> >>the US border is so much closer to Mexico city?
>
> >Unless there an ACW, that project is right out.
>
> On the other hand, in this scenario you might get Canada being created
> about 15 years earlier than in OTL. Those Mexican territories plus CA
> / AZ / NM / WY / CO make up roughly 65-70% of pre-war Mexico - which
> would definitely have put the fear of God both in the British Foreign
> Office and in the British North American colonies. Macdonald and Brown
> were still leading players in Upper Canada (OTL Ontario) in 1850 but
> it would have taken a LOT more effort from Westminster to bring about
> a colonial union than in 1867.

You need to find a place for Rupert's Land, otherwise it might end up
like Alaska.

For the visually oriented a map of Mexico in 1840. Note that
"California" is about 3/4s of the area West of the Lousiana line,
about half of which is labeled "New Mexico"
http://www.gracegalleries.com/images/M&CA/M&...

news.rcn.com

7/19/2008 5:39:00 PM

0


"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:90774940-5af1-4258-807c-c791d72b972d@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 1:13 pm, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> In article <6e5iavF5e4e...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Mike stone" <mwst...@aol.com> wrote:

>> >Did Texas actually get a _choice_ about how much it gave up?
>>
>> Not really. OTOH, the U.S. was not going
>> to slice and dice Texas at will either:
>> Texas had many friends in Congress.

Texas was fixin to march its militia to Santa Fe to establish its claim -
they had raided their state schools fund to bankroll it - and Zack Taylor
likely would have ordered the US Army to stop them. But then he died. A
military confrontation in New Mexico between the US and Texas has
interesting implications.

>>
>> >Incidentally, any thoughts on how all this impinges on the Compromise of
>> >1850? With all this additional territory, much of it more suitable for
>> >slavery than OTL New Mexico, will the North be so willing to go along
>> >with
>> >Popular Sovereignty?
>>
>> With this extra territory already open to slavery,
>> will the South push for pop sov in Kansas?

the guys on the ground in Missouri would have demanded that KS be a slave
state. they were worried about the implications for slavery in Missouri if
it was surrounded on three sides by free territory. They can probably drag
the rest of the slave states along with them.

>>
>> >Also, what are the rules likely to be about the franchise in territorial
>> >elections? If the vote is limited to "whites", who exactly counts as
>> >white
>> >in Chihuahua or Sinaloa? Or will the existing franchise (whatever that
>> >was
>> >under Mexican law) continue to operate until changed by Congress - which
>> >might take quite a while if Congress is badly deadlocked?
>>
>> AFAIK, there was no explicit rule disfranchising
>> Mexicans in TX or CA, and certainly not in NM.
>> I don't see how such a law could be enacted and
>> imposed in a populous Mexican region S of the Rio
>> Grande.


>>
>> One detail. Mexico, unlike the U.S., has a large
>> population of assimilated Indians. That is, there
>> are a lot of people who are Catholic, farmers,
>> Spanish-speaking - have completely given up Indian
>> ways, are no longer distinguished by 'tribe' - but
>> are still recognizably Indian. There were a few such
>> in the U.S., who were disfranchised till insignficant.
>> That won't work here.

before the Mexican War, there are basically three large-scale models for the
US dealings' with non-white peoples (1) enslaved blacks; (2) free blacks;
and (3) Indians. One is absolute subjugation, two is political
disenfranchisement (in the vast majority of States), and three is ethnic
cleansing, even in areas like the Southeast where many of the Indians were
"settled" in a way that the white majority would recognize. my gut tells me
that none of them are going to be applicable to populous territories in
Mexico. It is going to depend upon which gringos settle in the new
territories and how fast as well as the circumstances under which the
territorial governments are formed (the US military ruled New Mexico for
quite some time). worst-case scenario is "Criollos" (sp?) ally with gringo
immigrants and are recognized as "white" and allowed political rights, while
Mestizos live in circumstances similar to free blacks in the North.

the problem is, we don't have an antebellum model in which significant
numbers of white Americans are living among a (non-slave) populace that they
consider non-white, do we? Unless we have a nice multi-culti result, with
Mexicans and gringos living side by side in more or less harmony (which is
one possibility, to be sure), we would be looking at some sort of enforced
white supremacy, the particulars are left to the imagination.

cheers,

Doug

..


Jack Linthicum

7/19/2008 5:54:00 PM

0

On Jul 19, 1:39 pm, "Doug" <douglasx.ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:90774940-5af1-4258-807c-c791d72b972d@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 16, 1:13 pm, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >> In article <6e5iavF5e4e...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> "Mike stone" <mwst...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >Did Texas actually get a _choice_ about how much it gave up?
>
> >> Not really. OTOH, the U.S. was not going
> >> to slice and dice Texas at will either:
> >> Texas had many friends in Congress.
>
> Texas was fixin to march its militia to Santa Fe to establish its claim -
> they had raided their state schools fund to bankroll it - and Zack Taylor
> likely would have ordered the US Army to stop them. But then he died. A
> military confrontation in New Mexico between the US and Texas has
> interesting implications.
>
>
>
> >> >Incidentally, any thoughts on how all this impinges on the Compromise of
> >> >1850? With all this additional territory, much of it more suitable for
> >> >slavery than OTL New Mexico, will the North be so willing to go along
> >> >with
> >> >Popular Sovereignty?
>
> >> With this extra territory already open to slavery,
> >> will the South push for pop sov in Kansas?
>
> the guys on the ground in Missouri would have demanded that KS be a slave
> state. they were worried about the implications for slavery in Missouri if
> it was surrounded on three sides by free territory. They can probably drag
> the rest of the slave states along with them.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >Also, what are the rules likely to be about the franchise in territorial
> >> >elections? If the vote is limited to "whites", who exactly counts as
> >> >white
> >> >in Chihuahua or Sinaloa? Or will the existing franchise (whatever that
> >> >was
> >> >under Mexican law) continue to operate until changed by Congress - which
> >> >might take quite a while if Congress is badly deadlocked?
>
> >> AFAIK, there was no explicit rule disfranchising
> >> Mexicans in TX or CA, and certainly not in NM.
> >> I don't see how such a law could be enacted and
> >> imposed in a populous Mexican region S of the Rio
> >> Grande.
>
> >> One detail. Mexico, unlike the U.S., has a large
> >> population of assimilated Indians. That is, there
> >> are a lot of people who are Catholic, farmers,
> >> Spanish-speaking - have completely given up Indian
> >> ways, are no longer distinguished by 'tribe' - but
> >> are still recognizably Indian. There were a few such
> >> in the U.S., who were disfranchised till insignficant.
> >> That won't work here.
>
> before the Mexican War, there are basically three large-scale models for the
> US dealings' with non-white peoples (1) enslaved blacks; (2) free blacks;
> and (3) Indians. One is absolute subjugation, two is political
> disenfranchisement (in the vast majority of States), and three is ethnic
> cleansing, even in areas like the Southeast where many of the Indians were
> "settled" in a way that the white majority would recognize. my gut tells me
> that none of them are going to be applicable to populous territories in
> Mexico. It is going to depend upon which gringos settle in the new
> territories and how fast as well as the circumstances under which the
> territorial governments are formed (the US military ruled New Mexico for
> quite some time). worst-case scenario is "Criollos" (sp?) ally with gringo
> immigrants and are recognized as "white" and allowed political rights, while
> Mestizos live in circumstances similar to free blacks in the North.
>
> the problem is, we don't have an antebellum model in which significant
> numbers of white Americans are living among a (non-slave) populace that they
> consider non-white, do we? Unless we have a nice multi-culti result, with
> Mexicans and gringos living side by side in more or less harmony (which is
> one possibility, to be sure), we would be looking at some sort of enforced
> white supremacy, the particulars are left to the imagination.
>
> cheers,
>
> Doug
>
> .

I would point out that the "slave" part of Missouri is already
surrounded. Little Dixie is in the Northern part of the state and
isolated from the other slave states like Arkansas, Tennessee and
Kentucky by the Ozarks and St. Louis.

Texas sold out for money in 1850.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ssc/primary_resources/pdf/texas/Texas_New_Mexico_Bounda...