Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!ucbvax!UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU!C506634
From: C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Eric Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Re: Trouble with scripting in vt100 2.8a
Message-ID: <900925.112719.CDT.C506634@umcvmb.missouri.edu>
Date: 25 Sep 90 16:27:19 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Hackers Without Hard Drives
Lines: 21

In Message-ID: <34239@cup.portal.com>
          plav@cup.portal.com (Rick M Plavnicky) said:
>In a recent article C506634@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU (Eric Edwards) writes:
>>Now, before I get flooded with replies telling me to upgrade to 2.9xx, that
>>won't work.  This code cannot function without the ability for an ON statement
>>to interupt a WAIT.  The inability of an ON in vt100 2.9xx to interupt a wait
>>statement is IHMO the biggest misfeature of the program.
>
>Despite your statement, I'll point you at 2.9B anyway :-).  Its ARexx
>port can provide a good deal more flexibility than the built-in script
>language.  Have you checked it out before condemning it?

Are you just stating this as a general case or do you actually have code in
mind?  I, for one, don't see how Arexx is going to fix this.  There's also
the problem of detecting "more..." and clearing the screen.  This stuff runs
of a script hostile CMS system not the warm fuzzy Unix box you're probably used
to.

Eric Edwards: c506634 @    "The 3090.  Proof that by applying state of the
Inet: umcvmb.missouri.edu   art technology to an obsolete architecture,
Bitnet: umcvmb.bitnet       one can achieve mediocre performance."