Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!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: <1991Feb11.113601.1338@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 11 Feb 91 11:36:01 GMT References: <1991Feb6.033356.22164@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1991Feb9.045752.2018@sugar.hackercorp.com> <18a97a8b.ARN2a78@prolix.ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 14 In article <18a97a8b.ARN2a78@prolix.ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au> dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au writes: > In article <1991Feb9.045752.2018@sugar.hackercorp.com>, Peter da Silva writes: > > 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. > Explain the last sentence in that statement, Peter, and make it a > good explanation as well! Or Else. There's already an "execute" bit. A file with the execute bit set but not in Amiga load format should be treated as a script. No reason to blow another bit on the same thing. Too late *now*, of course, but why compound the mistake? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .