[Coco] Broken Syntax (Was: Weird errors)

[Joel Ewy]

Another way to think about it is that hard coding the syntax of a
particular utility in a binary perhaps doesn't completely embody the
OS-9 toolbox philosophy.  Perhaps it's a forgivable expediency and may
improve performance somewhat over reading the syntax from a
configuration file.  But my opinion would be that if you need to mess
around with system utilities, you probably should be wrapping the binary
in a shell script, which is easily editable.  Hard coding such details
in the BASIC-09 program module seems a little ham-fisted to me. 

As I think about it more, why is BASIC-09 (is it the runb module we're
talking about here?) calling tmode in the first place, instead of just
doing an appropriate setstat?  Why should it assume there is a tmode
utility available at all?  I wouldn't be too hard on Boisy here.  I
think BASIC-09 is at fault.

JCE

Boisy Pitre wrote:
> I knew the tmode change would eventually cause grief.  Let me explain
> the reasoning for changing tmode's syntax.
>
> The new tmode has roots in Bruce Isted's enhanced "exmode".  exmode,
> which came with the SACIA driver, was a better xmode utility with more
> options and a simplified syntax (albeit different from xmode).  The
> decision to move from xmode to exmode necessitated in my mind the need
> to also change tmode, since both are very similar.  In fact, tmode is
> built from the same xmode.asm source as xmode is.  The only difference
> is an assemble time command line switch.
>
> My philosophy of NitrOS-9 is that compatibility with OS-9 is
> important, but so is the evolution of the operating system.  The OS
> lends itself to extensibility by allowing for the addition of system
> calls, file managers and drivers which can modify the personality of
> the system.  Utilities are also susceptible to enhancements and
> modifications.  That can mean introduction of new "standard
> distribution" utilities (ded, megaread, etc) or, when there is a
> compelling feature, changes to existing utilities.
>
> There is the dilemma of breaking existing software.  As Robert and
> others have pointed out, using the old tmode would fix the syntax
> problem for older programs.  However, I am personally not opposed to
> adding "-echo" and "echo" in the existing tmode/xmode to accommodate
> these programs, and add other "backwards compatible" options as they
> arise.
>
> Does this sound like a good compromise?
> -- 
> Boisy G. Pitre
> 337.781.3570 mobile
> email: boisy at boisypitre.com
> Website: www.boisypitre.com
>
> "If there is truth to the proposition that knowing the past helps us
> to understand the present, I believe there is at least as much truth
> to the proposition that what we know of the present is crucial to our
> understanding of the past.  What we have not ourselves experienced or
> observed we can at most only partially and imperfectly comprehend; and
> I suspect that there is much in history that is so remote from our own
> experiences or observations as to be largely beyond our
> understanding." - Kenneth M. Stamp
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 6:25 AM, Robert Gault wrote:
>
>> Willard Goosey wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> Or, as Rob Gault advised me (crankily) when I complained about this,
>>> download the source for tmode and add the old style options back in.
>> ><snip>
>>
>> That's not my call. Try talking Boisy out of making these changes
>> some time. :)
>>
>> --Coco mailing list
>> Coco at maltedmedia.com
>> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
>
> --Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>