Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!manuel!ccadfa!prolix!dac
From: dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Script bits
Message-ID: <18ac1a05.ARN2ae4@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au>
Date: 12 Feb 91 11:07:17 GMT
Reply-To: dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Organization: More like Mis~, really.
Lines: 42
References:

In article <1991Feb11.113601.1338@sugar.hackercorp.com>, Peter da Silva writes:

> 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. 

Having eight bits is kinda useful, Peter. The 'Script' bit is great. Whilst
having the machine check to see if a file is a script, is plain dumb. There is
no reason why a binary should start with any particular sequence of
characters, right? Therefore, there is no reason why some unlucky binary file
could start with the text '.key', and then the script interpreter would be
called instead of the program loader - which would try to 'execute' a binary.
Not clever at all.

Adding the overhead of having to parse any executable to see if it's a script
is not clever, and I agree with CBM's decision to make a script-bit.

Messydos can get away with their strict filename regulations, to be able to
have a script file automagically execute when called, but who wants to be
limited to a brain dead filename limitation?

> No reason to blow another
> bit on the same thing. Too late *now*, of course, but why compound the mistake?

There was a reason. There isn't when it comes to AREXX, if WB 2.0 already
determines that the Script bit can mean Arexx or Execute Script.

(Funnily enough, the S bit doesn't work on AREXX scripts under 1.3! :-)

> Peter da Silva.   `-_-'

Dac
--
 _l _  _   // Andrew Clayton. Canberra, Australia.         I Post  .
(_](_l(_ \X/  Send mail to dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au                . .  I am.