Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewsd!bird
From: bird@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (j.l.walters)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: WPL for Appleworks?
Message-ID: <2556@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Oct 89 00:49:14 GMT
References: <8910201318.AA01526@trout.nosc.mil>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 38

From article <8910201318.AA01526@trout.nosc.mil>, by rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims):

> 
>> The TimeOut series from Beagle Brothers has more capabilities than WPL
> 
> Get serious!  The TimeOut series is excellent software, but
> comparing it to the capabilities of AppleWriter and WPL (if you
> =use= WPL's power) is laughable, at best.

I don't wnat to start WP Wars here, however, a couple of comments
can't hurt :-)

If you look at your WPL manual you will see that the commands
there were pretty much limited to those commands available from
the keyboard. (I know, you couldn't loop from the keyboard.)

Looking at Ultramacros you will see that the possibilities are
about as limitless as you can get - especially when you note that
escapes to assembly language are available.

Now, back to my original statement - I said the capabilities of
Ultramacros are greater than WPL. PLEASE not that I didn't say
there were not things that WPL can do that Ultramacros would find
difficult/impossible.

1. I'm mainly thinking of Aplewriter's/WPL's ability to embedd
   control characters in the text file. 

2. Don Lancaster's WPL macro package that printed micro-justified
   text on a Diablo remains a tour de force to this day.

(After showing two things Ultramacros "cannot" do, I fully expect
a posting by Mark Munz within the week showing us that neither is
true.)

-- 
				Joe Walters att!ihlpf!bird   
				IHP 1F-240 (312) 713-5356