rsine@nswc-wo.arpa (Sine) (04/25/89)
I have a request for 1.4, and for the life of me I can't understand why it isn't on everyones list. The request is for improved exception handlers. That's a simple request, it's the implementation that's difficult :-) I just feel that many of the GURU's should be error messages, and that one shouldn't have to reboot the machine. Ran ARPA: rsine@nswc-wo
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/11/89)
In article <13920002@hpfelg.HP.COM> koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) writes: > So, how do you do it? There must be an easy way to execute a program > that won't crash on some programs, and will let you have the return > code back from the command, and lets you redirect I/O. Unfortunately there isn't. My dearest wish for 1.4, since they're trashing all the BCPL excrement, is a System() that allows you to specify: - The name of the program to execute. - The command line to pass to the program. - The standard input of the command (CurrentInput). - The standard output of the command (CurrentOutput). - The command/terminal input of the command (DefaultInput). This should be what you get if you open "*" for reading. - The error/terminal output of the command (DefaultOutput). This should be what you get if you open "*" for writing. - The initial stack size of the command. - The priority of the command. - The current directory of the command. - Either a flag that means "wait until the command has finished", or a message port to wait on for the command to complete. If this is not provided, the command should be run asynchronously and clean up after itself (This requires a DupHandle() call as well). The ability to run BCPL commands is only needed if there are BCPL commands shipped with 1.4. The return from this routine should include: - An indication that the command was sucessfully launched. - The return status of the command (may be in a reply message). -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U` ``Back off dude! I'm a topologist!'' -- Andrew Molitor <amolitor@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (10/12/89)
In article <4340@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Unfortunately there isn't. My dearest wish for 1.4, since they're trashing >all the BCPL excrement, is a System() that allows you to specify: > [many good ideas] >The ability to run BCPL commands is only needed if there are BCPL commands >shipped with 1.4. No, we MUST support 1.3/1.2 WB disks under 1.4. Many commercial programs are shipped with such things on them. We may not support them forever, though. -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (10/15/89)
In article <8154@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: > In article <4340@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >The ability to run BCPL commands is only needed if there are BCPL commands > >shipped with 1.4. > No, we MUST support 1.3/1.2 WB disks under 1.4. Many commercial > programs are shipped with such things on them. We may not support them > forever, though. You're right. Sigh... all is not lost, though. The System() call can use a new interface and abandon BCPL programs, if the existing Execute() call remains (which it will have to do, for compatibility), and the standard CLI uses it. However, a new shell (AmigaShell 2.0?) should be at liberty to abandon BCPL. Not so? -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U` ``Back off dude! I'm a topologist!'' -- Andrew Molitor <amolitor@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (10/16/89)
In article <4352@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: ->In article <8154@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: ->> In article <4340@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: ->> >The ability to run BCPL commands is only needed if there are BCPL commands ->> >shipped with 1.4. -> ->> No, we MUST support 1.3/1.2 WB disks under 1.4. Many commercial ->> programs are shipped with such things on them. We may not support them ->> forever, though. -> ->You're right. Sigh... all is not lost, though. The System() call can use ->a new interface and abandon BCPL programs, if the existing Execute() call ->remains (which it will have to do, for compatibility), and the standard CLI ->uses it. However, a new shell (AmigaShell 2.0?) should be at liberty to ->abandon BCPL. Not so? You are still gonna get zapped sooner or later. Question to CBM> Is there an easy way to tell a CBM BCPL executable from most other stuff? I imagine all (or most) BCPL programs from CBM all start out the same way. Sooo, a System() call could detect this, and return an error instead of a GURU. Joe Porkka porkka@frith.egr.msu.edu