Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.introduction Subject: Re: Why is it * and not STD: ? Message-ID: Date: 21 May 91 15:29:25 GMT References: <1991May21.133734.25340@daimi.aau.dk> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk's message of 21 May 91 13:37:34 GMT In article <1991May21.133734.25340@daimi.aau.dk> pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) writes: I think myself, it's because it would be inconsistent, but is that why. Of course, I don't propose Commodore to forget * and use something else, but why isn't * a XXX: thing?0 It's already been mentioned here, so I can say it: Under 2.0, CONSOLE: (what's this fascination with three letters?) is synonymous with *, and * is tagged as obsolete. My fingers ache just thinking about it (hmm "assign *: console:"...). I suspect that it was that way because that's the way it was.