Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!apple!agate!magnolia.Berkeley.EDU!nj From: nj@magnolia.Berkeley.EDU (...) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: REXX command standards Message-ID: <1990Nov19.185627.3276@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 19 Nov 90 18:56:27 GMT References: <1990Nov14.033931.12883@evax.arl.utexas.edu> <1990Nov17.151516.14252@sisd.kodak.com> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Distribution: comp Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 21 cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) said: >On the other hand, you don't want to make programs more complex by possibly >having to support two significantly different standards for command interface. >For instance, (as Mike Meyer made mention of) MG3 already has a command >standard based on the GNU Emacs command standard. This is useful for those >people already very familiar with GNU Emacs. If the AREXX command standard >forced MG3 to support things like 'CUT = KILL-REGION', then new users to MG3 >would have to learn the Emacs language for interactive use followed by the >AREXX standard for scripting. Not necessarily. You could have both a GNU-style and a standard-style set of commands around, the former for scripts that you write to work only with MG and the latter for compatibility with "standardized" ARexx scripts. Presumably the functionality required by the standard-style commands would be a subset of the functionality of MG, so this wouldn't involve adding anything to MG besides mappings between the standard-style commands and MG's usual commands. nj