Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!nuchat!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Dealing with multiple scripting languages (was: Elinating the 'rx' from AREXX) Message-ID: <4190@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 22 Sep 89 17:12:51 GMT References: <721@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> <1989Aug29.031707.9022@agate.uucp> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 40 I was talking about multiple scripting languages. On BIX they're suggesting using #!command!# to tell what the command interpreter is, anywhere on the first line... I continued: > peter> I would recommend allowing it in more than just the first line, > peter> though, since some scripting languages like having the first > peter> line magic. Also, having some mechanism for passing extra > peter> arguments to the command interpreter would be useful. Deven suggested doing it just like UNIX, except that when the interpreter is started up... In article , shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes: > Stdin of interpreter is set to the script file, starting at the > SECOND line. That way, you don't have to worry about comment syntax. Two problems: (1) This has to work with existing programs, that might not work with the script on Input(). (2) This has to allow interactive input, which goes by the wayside if Input() has been stolen. The best solution, if you want to change things, is to add a standard command input seperate from stdin (oddly, there are multiple input and output streams in struct CLI. Anyone care to compare and contrast: cli_StandardInput cli_CurrentInput cli_StandardOutput cli_CurrentOutput ????). -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U` "before making up your mind, please read the book." -- sherry.mann "This is contrary to the spirit of rec.arts.sf-lovers" -- Jim Winer