Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: What is my name?
Message-ID: <4053@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Date: 22 Jul 89 15:14:46 GMT
References: <7374@ardent.UUCP> <7359@cbmvax.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston
Lines: 30

In article <7359@cbmvax.UUCP>, daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes:
> This is actually a case in which Workbench
> does a better job than CLI.

The Workbench startup message has LOTS of advantages over the CLI. For one
thing, the WBArgs structure is a lot closer to an ARGV: there's no limit to
thenumber of files, etc...

More importantly, it works a lot more reliably in a lot more environments.
CLI/Execute is hard to use and easy to break.

I have one BIG wish for 1.4. It doesn't require any code changes. It just
requires a documentation change:

In the WBArgs structure, document it that the LOCK may be 0, and if it is the
corresponding argument may not be a valid file name... i.e., an option or
a filename with embedded wildcards.

In the WBStartup structure, if sm_ToolWindow is NULL, then there's an extra
two BPTRs at the end of the structure, that are intended to correspond to
Input() and Output().

This will allow the Workbench to be expanded into a true shell. If you do this,
I'll *write* a shell that uses WBStartup structures, and a C startup that will
build a REAL argv/argc out of it...

See 'launch' for further details.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva      `-_-'
...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com  'U`