rosenber@ra.abo.fi (Robin Rosenberg INF) (11/01/89)
Well I'll been thinking AREXX-interfaces ought to be somewhat standardized. I.e a minimum standard for which commands to implement and how. I.e. commands to a specific type of application (eg editor) should be the same independently of which editor is used. A standard would make writing AREXX-programs simpler and perhaps more intuitive. It also would facilitate changing a rexx program to use another host than was initially used. It would also make reading these programs easier; actually much easier. I think this is important since the number of rexx programs on the Amiga is likely to increase (expnentially) soon and one has to be able to edit these with a minimal effort. A standard must be expandable upwards, so it wouldn't impose resricions on the rexx interface. For example an editor that fills the standard could be required to have a minumum set of commands with a specific syntax. create-buffer buffer-name delete-buffer buffer-name current-buffer buffer-name insert-file file-name etc etc. (these are just examples) Maybe the standard could have levels so that less powerful programs could adhere to it in some way. So. Is there an inofficial standard (I doubt)? If not: Are people interested in such a standard being defined? I think we all would benefit from it. Comments?? --------------- Robin Rosenberg, <rosenber@ra.abo.fi>
GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET (11/02/89)
I too think a standard Arexx interface for specific types of programs would be nice. I mean a 'save' operation for an editor or 'save as' should all be referred to identically and that way things are a little easier if you wish to share scripts that you have written. Maybe someone at commodore will take up the gauntlet and just ask people who are creating programs to adhere to a general standard. If one program has a special feature that isn't around in other programs that's fine, but general things like say for a spreadsheet should be the same all around (add c3 + d5). Actually if this doesn't happen I think ARexx will tend to lose a lot of its functionality to the fact that if you write a script it will only work with the one program you happened to have, and besides who wants to have re-write things just because one program calls saving 'saveold' as opposed to just 'save'....
Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) (11/03/89)
< Well I'll been thinking AREXX-interfaces ought to be somewhat < standardized. I.e a minimum standard for which commands to implement < and how. < I.e. commands to a specific type of application (eg editor) should be < the same independently of which editor is used. A standard would make < writing AREXX-programs simpler and perhaps more intuitive. It also Sounds like a very good idea. Why don't you write Bill Hawes on BIX?
wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) (11/04/89)
In article <89305.120953GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET>, GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET writes: > I too think a standard Arexx interface for specific types of programs would > be nice. I mean a 'save' operation for an editor or 'save as' should all > be referred to identically and that way things are a little easier if you > wish to share scripts that you have written. > . . . > things like say for a spreadsheet should be the same all around (add c3 + d5) > . . . The guy who used 'saveold' instead of 'save' did so because 'save' is ambiguous. If Commodore would lay down standards for the internal command language of an Amiga editor, then the ambiguity would be removed for those who know the standard. But then some prefer to type 'write' rather than 'save'. And those who do not like to type would prefer 'sv' or 'wr'. Perhaps instead of setting a standard internal command language for editors, Commodore should 'require' that all editors with internal command languages provide an aliasing facility for the internal command language. But then maybe somebody who has a great feature to incorporate in a new editor will decide that's it's just not worth the trouble. (HEH -- don't quote any of the foregoing; it's facetious.) The question of whether and when to standardize is a perennial issue. It's a real pain having to replace a whole kitchen because of a leaking faucet that's no longer replaceable or repairable. On the other extreme, if personal computers were "standardized", those of us who are here in this group would not be here. The standardization of internal command languages for editors, spreadsheets, etc. is certainly not necessary and is probably not a good thing now. I do not see this lack of a standard as an impediment to ARexx (tm), and I use ARexx a lot. Speaking of standards, I would like to hear about current thinking for the meaning of ASCII codes 80 through 9F (hex) on the Amiga. I know about 9B. And I have plans for 86, 87, 88 and 8A (which I "see" as <alt><ctrl> f, g, h, and j). (I know that plain <alt> for these keys is "dead" in the "usa1" keymap; anyway, I'm talking about screen font codes, not keys.) The 80-9B range is presumably "non-printing". To whom do they "belong"? (Possible answers include (1) Commodore-Amiga, (2) the developer, (3) The National Society for the Standardization of BPTR's, or (4) the user. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ William F. Hammond Dept. of Mathematics & Statistics 518-442-4625 SUNYA wfh58@leah.albany.edu Albany, NY 12222 -------------------------------------------------------------------------