dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (09/29/88)
HELP!!!!!!!
I am nesting Execute commands in my startup-sequence. Execute wants to
write to :T/Command-T-xx whenever I do. Creating RAM:T and assigning T:
to RAM:T doesn't work.
changing both references of :T in the Execute binaries to T: seems to help,
but for some reason the startup-sequence still complains (with a requester)
at some point about DF0: being read-only (namely the point at which I attempt
to execute the first nested Execute script). The relevant portions of my
startup-sequence look like this:
IF NOT EXISTS RAM:T
makedir RAM:T
ENDIF
Assign T: RAM:T
Execute Setup1 ;Requester is put up at this point. Clicking on CANCEL causes
;execution to continue normally
Execute Setup2 ;No requester asked for.
Dan Hankinssmaug@eneevax.UUCP (Kurt Lidl) (10/02/88)
In article <9550@cup.portal.com> dan-hankins@cup.portal.com writes: >HELP!!!!!!! >I am nesting Execute commands in my startup-sequence. Execute wants to >write to :T/Command-T-xx whenever I do. Creating RAM:T and assigning T: >to RAM:T doesn't work. >IF NOT EXISTS RAM:T > makedir RAM:T >ENDIF >Assign T: RAM:T Is the Ram: disk already activated (by a previous access) at this point in the startup-sequence? I do the same type of thing in my startup files, and have not problem... My idea is simply that the first access to Ram: is often swallowed... Of course, a much better solution is to use Matt Dillon's csh/shell program to do all your system housekeeping. I personally use teh modified one that has command-recall and editing... It works great... >Execute Setup1 ;Requester is put up at this point. Clicking on CANCEL causes > ;execution to continue normally >Execute Setup2 ;No requester asked for. Kurt Lidl >Dan Hankins -- ================================================================== == Kurt J. Lidl (smaug@eneevax.umd.edu) (301)454-3184 == == UUCP: [seismo,allegra]!umcp-cs!eneevax!smaug == ========"It's after 3am, no point in going to sleep now..."=======
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (10/04/88)
Kurt Lidl writes that he has no problem with nested Executes in his startup sequence. Kurt: Are you running under 1.3? I've heard that 1.3 fixes this problem. If not, could you send me a coy of your startup-sequence? Dan Hankins