Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!bernina!neptune!iiic.ethz.ch!umueller
From: umueller@iiic.ethz.ch (Urban Dominik Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: CShell 5.10, arp stuff, A3000 w/2.0; should they go together
Keywords: CShell arp A3000 2.0
Message-ID: <28961@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Date: 25 May 91 22:47:21 GMT
References: <1845@contex.contex.com> <28943@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <21913@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: news@neptune.inf.ethz.ch
Reply-To: umueller@iiic.ethz.ch (Urban Dominik Mueller)
Organization: Departement Informatik, ETH, Zurich
Lines: 19

In article <21913@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes:
>In article <28943@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> umueller@iiic.ethz.ch (Urban Dominik Mueller) writes:
>>because WB2.0 has given me no replacement for SyncRun() (I need a
>>function that uses the current process).
>
>	RunCommand(seglist,stacksize,arguments,argument length).  This is what
>is used by the system shell to run commands on your process.

Admitted. There are two reasons for still using SyncRun(): It's much more
convenient (no LoadSeg needed, no path search, no (arp) resident list search,
no setting of cli_CommandName), and it works under 1.3 as well. And it does
fine under 2.0, too. Probably I'll switch to RunCommand() in a 2.0 release
of CShell. Just curious: Does RunCommand() have any problems with the same
commands SyncRun() has, ie. c:Execute and c:Run? In any case it's a vast
improvement over Execute() (or CreateProc()).

>Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.

  -U. Dominik Mueller    umueller@iiic.ethz.ch       .sig light!