Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!polya!gilham
From: gilham@polya.Stanford.EDU (Fred Gilham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AShell problems
Keywords: ARP 1.3 shell
Message-ID: <8808@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 27 Apr 89 20:21:21 GMT
References: <1535@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <2180@pur-phy> <3142@m2-net.UUCP>
Sender: Fred Gilham <gilham@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: gilham@polya.Stanford.EDU (Fred Gilham)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 21

In article <3142@m2-net.UUCP> ba@m-net.UUCP (Bill Allen) writes:
>
>And while we're on the subject of Ashell...
>Is there any reason why ARP's v1.3.0 NewCLI, NewShell, and Ashell are
>all byte for byte identical?  Couldn't we have ALIAS'd this instead?
>

My impression upon noting this was that these programs figure out how
to behave by seeing what their name is.  Sort of like compress and
uncompress -- the same program but if it is called compress it
compresses and ....
So what I observed was that NewCLI acts like a cli, NewShell acts like
a shell and Ashell acts like a shell too.  This is unfortunate because
there are programs like Mg (a form of emacs) that execute a newcli.
If you want to make this bring up a shell, you can't just rename
Ashell to NewCLI, because the resulting cli will act like a cli.  Have
to recompile.  But if you ever want to go back to pure clis for some
reason, you have to recompile again, or make a copy of NewCLI
(Commodore version) called Ashell.  Let me know if I'm wrong on this.
Obviously I'd like to call Ashell NewCLI and get a shell with it.
-Fred Gilham