Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Standardization Keywords: spam Message-ID: <2866@sugar.uu.net> Date: 20 Oct 88 10:56:30 GMT References: <1304@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <1077@microsoft.UUCP> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX Lines: 24 In article <1077@microsoft.UUCP>, bradch@microsoft.UUCP (Bradford Christian ms1) writes: > I agree that there is a great need for a standard file requestor, but I > also do not necessarily want the same requestor as Joe Blow. Rather than > speccing standard file requestors, we'd all be better off if a standard > application interface to a file requestor were specified (and endorsed by > C-A, of course). Well, I suggested one in my original articles on PPIPC. It went over like a lead balloon. If I ever get off my lazy butt and kick Browser 1.5 beta 3 into shape I'm planning to have an AREXX port with the following request: REQUEST default-directory label Which will eventually return with the response string containing a file name (or maybe a space-seperated list of file names), when the user pulls down and selects "label" from the menu where it magically appears. You can easily see that a standalone program could do the same thing. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos.