Article View: comp.sys.atari.st
Article #37699Re: GEMDOS Extended Argument Standard
From: Geert J v Oldenborgh
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1989 09:45
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1989 09:45
9 lines
993 bytes
993 bytes
I wonder why we could not use the present 'standard' with one small diff: let the sartup code of a program kill the extra part of the environment by putting a 0L on "_P(B=...)". This unclutters the environment and avoids misunderstandings of its children, the main arguments against this scheme. The only requirement now is that the _PBP, ARGV and args must be at the END of the environment now, but they are already there in all implementations I have seen. G.J. van Oldenborgh
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<156@np1.hep.nl>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!np1!t19References:
<1405@atari.UUCP> <1424@atari.UUCP> <1989@uwovax.uwo.ca>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!np1!t19 From: t19@np1.hep.nl (Geert J v Oldenborgh) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: GEMDOS Extended Argument Standard Summary: Why not use MWC scheme with the sartup code killing this part with a 0L? Message-ID: <156@np1.hep.nl> Date: 4 Apr 89 09:45:35 GMT References: <1405@atari.UUCP> <1424@atari.UUCP> <1989@uwovax.uwo.ca> Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands). Lines: 9