Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
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: <21928@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 26 May 91 03:15:13 GMT
References: <1845@contex.contex.com> <28943@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <21913@cbmvax.commodore.com> <28961@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 21

In article <28961@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> umueller@iiic.ethz.ch (Urban Dominik Mueller) writes:
>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.

	The "more convenient" part are all normally shell functions.  It's
fairly easy to write a wrapper that does those if you wish.  Supposedly
Charlie was going to do a very small arp for 2.0 (many things become direct
or close to calls to Dos), but he and it seems to have fallen by the wayside
recently.

>Does RunCommand() have any problems with the same
>commands SyncRun() has, ie. c:Execute and c:Run? 

	It should work fine with them.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.
"No matter where you go, there you are."  - Buckaroo Banzai