Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!shakti!shri
From: shri@ncst.ernet.in (H.Shrikumar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: More on system commands from Forth
Message-ID: <1013@shakti.ncst.ernet.in>
Date: 16 Oct 90 05:27:35 GMT
References: <9009262119.AA20487@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: shri@shakti (H.Shrikumar )
Organization: National Centre for Software Technology, Bombay, INDIA
Lines: 23

In article <9009262119.AA20487@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 
     wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes:

wmb>The way I handle Unix (substitute your favorite OS) commands from inside
wmb>Forth right now is:
wmb>
wmb>    I have Forth words for the most commonly used system commands, such as
wmb>    ls, rm, dir, cd, etc. ... implemented directly in Forth,...
wmb>
wmb>    For other system commands, I have a "shell escape".  The command ...
wmb>
wmb>Mitch

   I'd vote for this too.

   Passing stuff from one environment to another, when the two are
driven by different standards (de-facto or otherwise) processes, and
different evolution is a bad idea.

   Forth should know what it is doing - precisely. (even if what it does
know is that it does not know the command which has been shell escaped :-)

-- shrikumar ( shri@ncst.in )