Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!vsi1!ubvax!ardent!peck!rap
From: rap@peck.ardent.com (Rob Peck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Dealing with multiple scripting languages (was: Elinating the 'rx' from AREXX)
Message-ID: <8008@ardent.UUCP>
Date: 29 Aug 89 20:54:37 GMT
References: <1989Aug14.015608.21854@agate.berkeley.edu> <1410026@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM>
Sender: news@ardent.UUCP
Reply-To: rap@peck.ardent.com (Rob Peck)
Organization: Ardent Computer Corp., Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 24

In article <1410026@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes:
>> 				All scripting languages worth their salt
>> have some sort of comment syntax. So, make some unique pattern that can be
>> used to identify a script language, and allow it anywhere in the first couple
>> of lines of the script (in the first couple of lines to allow for programs
>> that use a seperate line to indicate a comment pseudo-op, or need some magic
>> on line 1):
>
>Oh joy!  A breath of fresh air!  This proposal takes the desirable
>part of what was proposed earlier while nicely avoiding the pitfalls.
>
>> /* $$SCRIPT(RX $*) */

[[ more suggestions deleted, all containing $$ in some fashion ]]

Yes, thanks to Peter, we do have some reasonable suggestions.  Just my $0.02
that one might consider avoiding $$ and use ## instead, or any other similar
combination.  Though I believe that it is not a "collision", remember that
starting with 1.3, the EXECUTE command substitutes the CLI number running
the command for a "$$" that it finds in angle-brackets (<$$>).  Just thought
it best to leave fewer chances to confuse the (new?) user of execute scripts
by choosing something else for this purpose.

Rob Peck