🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 17 Nov 90 15:15:16 GMT, jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) said:

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

On the other hand, you don't want to make programs more complex by possibly
having to support two significantly different standards for command interface.
For instance, (as Mike Meyer made mention of) MG3 already has a command
standard based on the GNU Emacs command standard.  This is useful for those
people already very familiar with GNU Emacs.  If the AREXX command standard
forced MG3 to support things like 'CUT = KILL-REGION', then new users to MG3
would have to learn the Emacs language for interactive use followed by the
AREXX standard for scripting.

Perhaps an alternative suggestion to an AREXX command standard would be a
single command by which AREXX could ask the program in question what its
command equivalents for the AREXX standard would be.  The result of such a
command would be a list that's indexed by the standard commands.  Scripts
desiring to be standard would work indirectly off this list whereas people not
up to standardization yet would use the program's internal commands directly
(because those are the one's they would most like learn first).

This is a neophyte suggestion, so does this make sense?

--
====================================================================
David Masterson					Consilium, Inc.
(415) 691-6311					640 Clyde Ct.
uunet!cimshop!davidm				Mtn. View, CA  94043
====================================================================
"If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"