Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: How to improve Workbench 2.0! Message-ID: <1991Feb9.045752.2018@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 9 Feb 91 04:57:52 GMT References: <1991Feb3.101342.8383@news.iastate.edu> <7704@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Feb6.033356.22164@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 20 In article <1991Feb6.033356.22164@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > 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? > Probably not. The Amiga community (at least the part we see here, and who > else gets a vote? ;-) tends to ship a lot of software from system to > system, including unpacking and repacking it on various hosts. I think a > filenote would not survive this process, right? Point, but neither would a REXX bit. Perhaps we need to add filenotes to zoo/lharc/...? In any case, adding a special bit for *each* separate command language is a bad idea. I think the script bit is a mistake already. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .