Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mcnc!ecsvax!utoddl
From: utoddl@ecsvax.UUCP (Todd M. Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Generic macro support (a la ARexx)
Message-ID: <6781@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: 7 Apr 89 15:29:01 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Lines: 22


I have not yet included ARexx support to any of my programs, but
I do intend to.  However, I don't want to lock my users into one
macro facility.  I would prefer to give them a choice.  Having not
done ARexx support before, I'm wondering if it is straight forward
to let the users select their macro processor.  I've assumed that
programs find ARexx through named ports; is this correct?  Would 
a "Macro Processor Requestor" make sense for allowing the user
to select one of several ARexx-like facilities?  Has this been done
before?  I can see situations where some special-purpose macro
facilities might be more appropriate in some cases than the general
support provided by ARexx.  Also, someday someone is going to come
out with a competitor with ARexx, and I would like my users to 
be able to take advantage of those other options.

Does this even make any sense at all to anyone?
  _____        
    |      Todd M. Lewis            Disclaimer: If you want my employer's
    ||\/|  utoddl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu             ideas, you'll have to
    ||  ||                                      _buy_ them. 
     |  ||     
         |___   (Never write a program bigger than your screen.)