Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?
From: Herbert Kleebauer (klee_at_unibwm.de)
Date: 12/18/04
- Next message: Evenbit: "Re: "Unified model" for beginners"
- Previous message: Betov: "Re: A snapshot of the LuxAsm developments"
- In reply to: Percival: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Next in thread: Percival: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Reply: Percival: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Reply: T.M. Sommers: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:57:48 +0100
Percival wrote:
> Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> > echo {Sx{X?{Eu@Pq`Dkfk?a@o{A@CoCEFr@B@K~Tj~@CeK??BB0x>>out.com
> > out.com ff 378
> And, i don't see any advantage to actually writting something in
> assembly, and using the assembler, compile out.com, then distributing
> out.com with the file.
Because if you have a collection of utilities on your computer
which you frequently use in your scripts and then transfer one
of the scripts to an other computer, then there always is
at least one utility which is used by the script and which
you have forgotten to copy. You don't have this problem
if all is include within the script.
> > the tools the script needs). And if all you need is included in
> > the script in form of a few processor instruction (echo is an
> > internal command), the this script can be executed even if there
> > is nothing but the shell itself on the PC.
>
> echo works the (nearly exact) same way on *Nix systems.
Yes, but you don't have a so simple executable file format
like com files in DOS, which are nothing but CPU instructions
(so you can generate executable files using printable ASCII
characters only).
>
> I mean, user defined functions
>
> Like this in bash:
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
> function blah() { #this is a function
> echo Hello World!!;
> }
>
> blah #call the function twice
> blah
call :sub "hello world"
call :sub "hello again"
goto :eof
:sub
echo %1
goto :eof
- Next message: Evenbit: "Re: "Unified model" for beginners"
- Previous message: Betov: "Re: A snapshot of the LuxAsm developments"
- In reply to: Percival: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Next in thread: Percival: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Reply: Percival: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Reply: T.M. Sommers: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|