Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!tness7!killer!osu-cis!n8emr!lwv From: lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Possible Executioner replacement... Message-ID: <569@n8emr.UUCP> Date: 2 Jun 88 20:24:00 GMT References: <8805311328.aa13074@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <5936@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <21475@think.UUCP> Reply-To: lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) Organization: Ham BBS, Columbus,Oh. 614-457-4227 (300/1200,8N1) Lines: 56 In article <21475@think.UUCP> whitney@godot.think.com.UUCP (David Whitney) writes: --> -->Is your complaint the fact that the files won't be EXECable, or that you -->mistrust my 6-bit codes? I'll be using the upper and lower-case alphabet, -->the ten digits, and two more common chars (say, "<" and ">") which makes -->64 codes. I see no trouble in this. --> My only 'complaint' is wondering why you just dont change executioner to user your new set of characters? I have talked to Bredon and HE doesnt care - he says that is why he released the source code to executioner - so that others could do with it what they wanted. This is the best of all worlds in my mind. -->By not making the files EXECable, I can make it easier for the user to deal -->with the files. Each file will have a start mark and an end mark. This way, -->you don't have to delete headers/trailers. EOLs don't have to exist in any -->particular way (they'll be ignored). Files will not be restricted to fit in -->the 48k address space of ProDOS 8 (no, this isn't going to be a ProDOS 16 prgm, -->it just deals with things in a better way). Multiple files could be sent in -->the same piece of mail as each file is seperated by a start/end mark. Beginning -->to see the advantages? I can see advantages to ignoring headers and trailers, but you dont HAVE to delete them - you can say exec file,r15 and the first 15 lines will be skipped, etc. What WOuLD be nice is a small interface to run which figures out how many lines to skip and then does the exec. As for linefeeds vs carriage returns vs both - I dont know how to rectify that one - I wish floyd would add a few more options to his pgm previous known as TEX to cover all the alternatives. If you are going to set this thing up, how about making an include capability, so that folks who post multipart postings can not worry about forcing folks to glue pieces back together. --> -->For those who use a command shell (such as APW, Davex, or whatever), Binscii -->will be no more of a pain to use than Executioner is, as one has to run -->BASIC.SYSTEM in order to EXEC the file. The only thing is, one will need -->Binscii to un-code a file, but I see no disadvantage to that. Lots of people -->are going to want Binscii to post (lots want Executioner - I for some reason -->get requests to mail it off to people an awful lot) their files... --> -->Of course, since Executioner is free, this will have to be free. If I should -->even ask for 10 cents, nobody would buy it. I have no problem with this. --> How about making this thing a system type pgm - one that can be exec'd from a shell? Also, how about allowing command line arguments? Then Davex/ECP8 users can use it just a little more nicely. Talk to David Lyons and Don Elton for details... -- Larry W. Virden 75046,606 (CIS) 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 osu-cis!n8emr!lwv (UUCP) osu-cis!n8emr!lwv@TUT.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (INTERNET) We haven't inherited the world from our parents, but borrowed it from our children.