🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Aug8.214011.3351@agate.berkeley.edu> mwm@mica.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
>
>
>Simple example: It'd be nice if stack's output was "stack <bytes>"
>instead of "Current stack size is <bytes>" - or that you could make it
>do that. Why? How about a script like:
>
>stack >ram:resetstack
>stack 50000
>; run some thing that needs 50K of stack
>execute ram:resetstack
>
> [Other examples deleted]

My first reaction was one of agreement.  Assuming Arexx is part of the 1.4
release, though, means we could use its extensive string handling capabilities
to handle these verbose outputs.  It would also cool to have invocation of Arexx
scripts without prepending 'rx', just like with 1.3 we can run scripts without
prepending 'execute' to the command line.  Perhaps the same mechanism that
WShell uses could be employed (or maybe a Rexx protection bit --- UG- forget
I said that!).

>Once again, it'd be nice if the output from all commands was examined,
>and changed (or flags added to make it change) to something more
>suitable for feeding to other commands (including execute).
>	
>	<mike

I suppose we will have a nice bit of confusion with 1.4 since both Arexx and
AmigaDOS scripts will be present to perform script file functions.

Summary
of my opinion: Arexx will allow more power in scripts to overcome other
oddities of AMigaDOS commands, but I agree with your suggestion of devoting
some effort to improving command output messages.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Lindwall                            johnl@tw-rnd.SanDiego.NCR.COM
           "Above opinions are my own, not my employer's"
   Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Lindwall                            johnl@tw-rnd.SanDiego.NCR.COM
           "Above opinions are my own, not my employer's"
   Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.