Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ubvax!ardent!rap
From: rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: "No K directive" in 1.3's Execute
Summary: In the Amiga Companion I explain it this way
Message-ID: <1740@ardent.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jan 89 01:11:50 GMT
References: <1989Jan6.183818.19500@ziebmef.uucp> <10291@well.UUCP> <1180@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Dana Computer, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 30

In article <1180@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu>, vkr@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) writes:
> 
> How come nobody has mentioned .BRA and .KET yet? It should be standard
> practice to use them if your script does redirection.
> 
> [BTW, .BRA and .KET reassign the < and > characters when used to enclose
> variables. The name is obviously taken from physicists' parlance. I wonder..

I chose to explain the choice of the words this way, and nobody has
come forward thusfar to say that my own interpretation of history
is incorrect...

	(From memory...cause the book is not nearby)...

	.BRA is used to redefine the lefthand character that is used to
	     enclose variables for EXECUTE scripts, and

	.KET is used to redefine the righthand character used for
	     enclosing variables for EXECUTE scripts.

	If you notice, when you combine these two names together,
	they form the word "BRAKET" which is close enough (for me
	at least) to remind me that the characters that these
	commands redefine form a 'bracket' that encloses a variable.

Maybe I am wrong, but it seemed to be a good memory device that I could
give to a new user who was trying to learn what script commands were all
about.

Rob Peck