Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Article #1063Re: Dealing with multiple scripting languages (was: Elinating the 'rx' from AREXX)
From: Mike (I'll think of something ye...
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1989 23:30
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1989 23:30
46 lines
2879 bytes
2879 bytes
In article <1410026@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: <> All scripting languages worth their salt <> have some sort of comment syntax. So, make some unique pattern that can be <> used to identify a script language, and allow it anywhere in the first couple <> of lines of the script (in the first couple of lines to allow for programs <> that use a seperate line to indicate a comment pseudo-op, or need some magic <> on line 1): < <Oh joy! A breath of fresh air! This proposal takes the desirable <part of what was proposed earlier while nicely avoiding the pitfalls. Like most simple solutions to complex problems, this one doesn't work. First problem: Line? What's a line in a binary file? I really don't want the system looking through 300K or so of a databse for a newline character that isn't in it. This actually has an easy solution: instead of limiting it to the first couple of lines, limit it to the first N bytes, for reasonable N - the first block sounds good. Second problem: The string needs to be something that isn't likely to appear in a binary file - or an arbitrary text file - by chance. Once again, the solution is simple. Third problem: This is ugly. The real BSD solution is clean, simple, and fit well with the existing system on Unix. This doesn't fit well with what's already on the Amiga (though the Unix solution would). Fourth problem: Having Execute feed an ARexx script to ARexx cuts off the major part of ARexx's usefullness as a scripting language. One more time: Unix doesn't have a mechanism similar to ARexx. Adopting the BSD solution to the problem of multiple scripting languages doesn't solve any existing problems - you still have to have two seperate mechanisms, one for ARexx and one for everything else. In this case, "everything else" is only one thing. So why bother? Especially when ARexx _already has_ a mechanism allowing for multiple scripting languages. <mike -- Take a magic carpet to the olden days Mike Meyer To a mythical land where everybody lays mwm@berkeley.edu Around in the clouds in a happy daze ucbvax!mwm In Kizmiaz ... Kizmiaz mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1989Aug29.233027.4285@agate.uucp>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwmReferences:
<1989Aug14.015608.21854@agate.berkeley.edu> <1410026@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwm From: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Dealing with multiple scripting languages (was: Elinating the 'rx' from AREXX) Message-ID: <1989Aug29.233027.4285@agate.uucp> Date: 29 Aug 89 23:30:27 GMT References: <1989Aug14.015608.21854@agate.berkeley.edu> <1410026@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> Sender: usenet@agate.uucp (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44) Reply-To: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 46