jwl@Feanor.Stanford.EDU (John Lockhart) (04/21/89)
In article <777@rex.cs.tulane.edu> dennison@rex.UUCP (Theodore Dennison) writes: >My entry for the wish list? Get rid of the execute command and change >AmigaDOS to try to load non-object files as script files, like MS-DOS does. [stuff deleted] >T.E.D. Um, it already works. Or at least, my setup does. When it's presented with the name of a file which has its script bit set, WShell executes the file. Oh yes, said script file should reside either in the current directory or in S:. I don't know that WShell even uses c:execute to do this; I don't think so. C:Execute still has its uses, though...for all those scripts without their bits set right :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- John Lockhart jwl@feanor.stanford.edu BIX: jlockhart
ugkamins@sunybcs.uucp (John Kaminski) (04/21/89)
In article <8645@polya.Stanford.EDU> jwl@Feanor.Stanford.EDU (John Lockhart) writes: [ chuck execute and just type the script filename ] > >Um, it already works. Or at least, my setup does. When it's presented with >the name of a file which has its script bit set, WShell executes the file. >Oh yes, said script file should reside either in the current directory or >in S:. I don't know that WShell even uses c:execute to do this; I >don't think so. the standard amigashell uses c:execute ... found this out when making my system convenient to use..... it didn't QUITE know how to find "co" (a throwback to my Primos daze :^) which is simply execute renamed to co. > >C:Execute still has its uses, though...for all those scripts >without their bits set right :-) That, and backward compatiblility. It abolutely irritates me to use AmigaDOS names, so renaming seemed to be the thing to do. But at that time, noone explained s:shell-startup nor alias to me, and I'm too lazy to change it back. Well, I also want to see the new (coincidentally UNIXified) command names when I ls (I mean, um, dir) c: As an aside, any of you ever used Primos? Can any of you imagine writing a BBS in CPL? I did. Really! Can any of you imagine writing a BBS with Amiga shell script commands? CPL isn't quite that bad, because CPL has backward branches, and as I understand it, the shell can only SKIP foreward. Well, I might mention that this CPL BBS had a mail system and a general message base, and no transfer section (there was no need for it...this was just a message disseminator for the Comp. Club).
manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) (04/22/89)
In article <UYHTJ3y00Vsf81ah1g@andrew.cmu.edu> mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: >manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: >> --> Please fix it so that you can start another file besides shell >> startup when you activate the shell. I might want to have different >> shell scripts depending on where my shell is, or what I am doing... >> >I believe this is already possible: > >NewShell FROM s:other-shell-startup > >is an example. > I wish it to work from the Workbench as well. :-) I know that you can say it from the CLI. >-- >Michael Portuesi * Information Technology Center * Carnegie Mellon University >INET: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu * BITNET: mp1u+@andrew >UUCP: ...harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ >MAIL: Carnegie Mellon University, P.O. Box 259, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > >"Why do I live the way I do > ain't it obvious I'm just a man like you" --Boy George --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark D. Manes "In Amiga We Trust" Programmer of Fortune, have compiler will travel "Only Amiga makes it Possible, but with 1 meg its hell!" ===========================================================================
wilde@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Nick Wilde) (04/22/89)
>>manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: >>> --> Please fix it so that you can start another file besides shell >>> startup when you activate the shell. I might want to have different >> >>I believe this is already possible: >>NewShell FROM s:other-shell-startup >>is an example. >> >I wish it to work from the Workbench as well. :-) I know that you can >say it from the CLI. > I thought that's what iconx (or Xicon, which is it these days ?) is all about. Anything that can be done from a CLI script can be done from an icon, using one of the above.. .