🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Nov17.151516.14252@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes:
>
>As Mike Meyer pointed out, simply taking every command that a program has
>and creating an AREXX equivalent for it isn't a good way to develop a
>standard.  Simple things like port name and command syntax conventions
>should be relatively easy to agree on.  The hard part will be agreeing
>on what commands should (and should not) be included in a standard.

Among the many interesting problems that must be solved in with these
standards is the problem of dealing with multiple instances of the
same program running at the same time.  What port name do I use in my
rexx programs to be sure that I am addressing the right instance of
the editor? What 'standard' bit of information do you have the editor
return so that you can tell where you are and what happened with the last
command? Etc, etc. There is a lot more detail involved than initially
meets the eye.
 
Effective (read 'useful') macros require a fairly complex set of things
to be communicated between the rexx program and the application. If these
things aren't also addressed (at least to some degree) then it seems
to me to be of minimal value to just set a few "basic" definitions as
you will spend almost as much time fiddling with custom Arexx code as
you would have without the standards. No?

I think it's a good idea, mind you, but it needs to be considered
thoroughly.

bj

>Ed Hanway --- uunet!sisd!jeh

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Brian Jackson  Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc.  GEnie: B.J. |
 | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com    or  ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj     |
 | "Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"      |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------