Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!rca.com!DCOTTLER From: DCOTTLER@rca.com (Dan Cottler) Newsgroups: mod.computers.vax Subject: RE: Shorter alternate to STOP/FORCE Message-ID: <8612021002.AA14541@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Mon, 1-Dec-86 08:05:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8612021002.AA14541 Posted: Mon Dec 1 08:05:00 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Dec-86 08:16:26 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 23 Approved: info-vax@sri-kl.arpa >I don't know what you did to make your version of a program to force exits >of other processes take thirty-odd blocks (unless you're counting the include >files that DEC supplies in your count), but here's a C program that does >basically the same thing (it doesn't use the CLI routines that yours does, >but DOES let you specify processes by name) that only takes two blocks >(actually, 766 characters): Dear Mr. Carl%cithex.caltech.edu, I'm one of the people that asked Mr. Synful%drycas.bitnet for a copy of his program. Yes, FORCE is larger than your code. Both seem to run equally well. But FORCE has something your code doesn't -- A reasonable VMS interface and DOCUMENTATION. Given a choice, I'll take the code from Synful%drycas.bitnet everytime. His code is much easier to read, much easier to use, and DOCUMENTED. - Dan Cottleror RCA Advanced Technology Laboratories Moorestown, NJ