Re: LZ: Shells
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: LZ: Shells
Damien wrote:
>
> Jeffrey S. Sharp, Crystal Baird, and Mark Sharp wrote:
>
> Michael Wyman wrote:
> >
> > I was
> > thinking about setting up an IRC time to meet... About
> making sure that
> > all shells have a few common grounds
>
> OS-85, SuperNova, ZShell, CShell, OShell, whatever-shell,
> blah blah
> blah. What we have here is a *failure* *to* *communicate*.
> IRC chat
> sessions would be great. But what we really need is to make
> a
> standard.
>
> Here's an idea. Let's imagine a new and wonderful shell.
> Call it, say,
> OpenZ. Here's how everything would work:
>
> (1) You have *one* shell. No one will write another shell.
>
> (2) You have *one* standard for shell-writing on the 85.
> Call it, say,
> The OpenZ Standard.
>
> (3) The OpenZ shell will include *all* options set forth in
> the
> standard. This includes APD, contrast, an Expnader SF
> filesystem,
> function keys, interrupt piggybacking routines, everything.
>
> (4) OpenZ is distributed as _commented_source_code_. Also
> included in
> the distribution packet will be an assembler and an install
> program
> which will automate *everything*.
>
> (5) The commented source code will have preprocessor
> directives that
> divide OpenZ into several modular parts.
>
> (6) At install time, the user selects which components he
> wants.
>
> (7) The install routine will, using equates to activate the
> preprocessor
> directives, assemble a shell with only the components the
> user selected.
>
> (8) The installer will transfer the shell to the calc.
>
> (9) Anybody can add to or modify the shell as long as it
> stays
> backwards-compatible. It's an open standard. When someone
> does this,
> he or she should release an updated standard. A
> version-control method
> would be nice here.
True, but it sounds like you're forgetting that this is a CALCULATOR;
_NOT_ an entire computer system. You've got some good ideas, but you're
also forgetting the main method of transport for these programs--THE
TI-85. VERY few people have a GRAPHLINK, and those that do are not ALL
as technical as we are.
Bottom Line?--WE HAVE TO KEEP THIS SIMPLE AND EASY-TO-USE.
Once again, I think that a Shell-Developers list would be helpful...
Cheers,
--
~Keith
TSK3000@Prodigy.Net
Follow-Ups:
References: