Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!np1!t19
From: t19@np1.hep.nl (Geert J v Oldenborgh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: GEMDOS Extended Argument Standard
Summary: Why not use MWC scheme with the sartup code killing this part with a 0L?
Message-ID: <156@np1.hep.nl>
Date: 4 Apr 89 09:45:35 GMT
References: <1405@atari.UUCP> <1424@atari.UUCP> <1989@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands).
Lines: 9

I wonder why we could not use the present 'standard' with one small diff:
let the sartup code of a program kill the extra part of the environment by
putting a 0L on "_P(B=...)".  This unclutters the environment and avoids
misunderstandings of its children, the main arguments against this scheme.
The only requirement now is that the _PBP, ARGV and args must be at the END
of the environment now, but they are already there in all implementations
I have seen.

G.J. van Oldenborgh