Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!leah!wfh58 From: wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: AREXX commands standardization Summary: Beware of unnecessary "standards" Message-ID: <2136@leah.Albany.Edu> Date: 3 Nov 89 19:36:36 GMT References: <166@ra.abo.fi> <89305.120953GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET> Distribution: comp Organization: Dept of Math & Stat, SUNYA, Albany, NY Lines: 45 In article <89305.120953GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET>, GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET writes: > I too think a standard Arexx interface for specific types of programs would > be nice. I mean a 'save' operation for an editor or 'save as' should all > be referred to identically and that way things are a little easier if you > wish to share scripts that you have written. > . . . > things like say for a spreadsheet should be the same all around (add c3 + d5) > . . . The guy who used 'saveold' instead of 'save' did so because 'save' is ambiguous. If Commodore would lay down standards for the internal command language of an Amiga editor, then the ambiguity would be removed for those who know the standard. But then some prefer to type 'write' rather than 'save'. And those who do not like to type would prefer 'sv' or 'wr'. Perhaps instead of setting a standard internal command language for editors, Commodore should 'require' that all editors with internal command languages provide an aliasing facility for the internal command language. But then maybe somebody who has a great feature to incorporate in a new editor will decide that's it's just not worth the trouble. (HEH -- don't quote any of the foregoing; it's facetious.) The question of whether and when to standardize is a perennial issue. It's a real pain having to replace a whole kitchen because of a leaking faucet that's no longer replaceable or repairable. On the other extreme, if personal computers were "standardized", those of us who are here in this group would not be here. The standardization of internal command languages for editors, spreadsheets, etc. is certainly not necessary and is probably not a good thing now. I do not see this lack of a standard as an impediment to ARexx (tm), and I use ARexx a lot. Speaking of standards, I would like to hear about current thinking for the meaning of ASCII codes 80 through 9F (hex) on the Amiga. I know about 9B. And I have plans for 86, 87, 88 and 8A (which I "see" as f, g, h, and j). (I know that plain for these keys is "dead" in the "usa1" keymap; anyway, I'm talking about screen font codes, not keys.) The 80-9B range is presumably "non-printing". To whom do they "belong"? (Possible answers include (1) Commodore-Amiga, (2) the developer, (3) The National Society for the Standardization of BPTR's, or (4) the user. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ William F. Hammond Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics 518-442-4625 SUNYA wfh58@leah.albany.edu Albany, NY 12222 -------------------------------------------------------------------------