Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!manuel!ccadfa!prolix!dac
From: dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Script bits
Message-ID: <18b062bf.ARN2b99@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au>
Date: 15 Feb 91 17:06:39 GMT
References: <18ac1a05.ARN2ae4@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> <7564@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Reply-To: dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Organization: More like Mis~, really.
Lines: 24

In article <7564@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, Dan Barrett writes:

[and joins the throngs pointing out my glaring error. Oh the pain]

> 	But you are right -- the method isn't perfect.  But neither is
> having a different bit for each of 52 different interpreters (Shell,
> AREXX, AmigaBasic, csh, sksh, etc etc), or the inability to run scripts
> for "unsupported" interpreters.

Well, no, having a *different* bit for each script interpreter is plainly
ridiculous.  I saw Peter make, what appeared to me, to be a wild accusation.
My execution of my reply could have been, ah, cleverer.  :-/

If a file has the SCRIPT bit set, then Amigados should know how to cope with
it, if it is a dos script, or an Arexx script.  There isn't any need for an
'Arexx' script, which is was the nice gentleman from C= said in the first
place.

> | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science      Johns Hopkins University |

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