🚀 go-pugleaf

> Perhaps the answer is to remove the magic number to somewhere else,
> like the file header, so that the interpreter doesn't actually get it
> as part of the file. 

A disadvantage to this is that the magic number is lost if I move the
file using arc, shar, cpio, tar, ...

> I don't mind if Amigados scripts get broken, as long as there is a way
> to tell when they are broken because of the changes. That would entail
> an error message to the effect: 'No magic number'. It would be a small
> price to pay for the transition, and would be relatively easy to fix.

That is not a small price to pay.  Any time you break existing
programs (especially those used by novices) you are asking to loose
market share.

> I don't see arbitrary binaries as a problem. The rule would be to look
> at the first non-whitespace character(s). If they happen to be
> something used by an interpreter, what are the chances that the rest
> of the passed file will be a legal interpreter program?

And the interpreter gags on it.  That is not friendly.  The idea is to
recognize that it is binary and NOT interpret it.

>>  However, that ignores the more important problem - that ARexx
>> expects a wider communications path to the invoking program than
>> Execute provides. 

> Yes, and that's now, as things stand under the current rev of the OS.
> I think you'll find that there are sufficient hooks coming to fill the
> requirements of ARexx, and that many of the problems will disappar
> entirely. My main concern is that we have a method to allow virtually
> unlimited capability to add interpreted languages transparently, and
> in a manner consistent with each language's implementation.
> -larry

This is music to my ears.
--
	Charles Brown	charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com
			or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!"
	Not representing my employer.