Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bwdls61!bwdls58!leibniz!walt From: walt@bcarh133.uucp (Walt Sullivan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: How to improve Workbench 2.0! Message-ID: Date: 8 Feb 91 21:06:43 GMT References: <812@cbmger.UUCP> <1991Feb3.101342.8383@news.iastate.edu> <7704@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Feb6.033356.22164@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Sender: news@bwdls58.UUCP Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 22 In-reply-to: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG's message of 6 Feb 91 03:33:56 GMT peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > Better would be a method of including a comment with the file to > describe what interpreter to use. It can't be in the file itself > because, unlike UNIX, it's too late to standardize comment > conventions. How about putting it in the filenote? I already use my filenotes to keep information about where I got the file. I'd be REALLY UNHAPPY if, one future release, it started trying to execute an interpreter based on the contents of my filenotes. I also use filenotes to pass information around when I'm processing comp.{sources|binaries}.amiga postings. When the Amiga was first released, we were given the filenotes to use for attaching notes to files. I think Commodore would receive many flames if they tried to take back the filenote. -- Walt Sullivan BITNET: walt@BNR.CA (work) UUCP: walt@orbit.amiga.OCUnix.on.ca (home)