I have several objections. Since this is an array, this will actually
shift the arguments to non-intuitive positions (there's no way to have an
element 0 in an array). I don't actually see that this provides much
useful function, and really entangles the language too much with command
shell issues.
Rick
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Mark Miesfeld <miesf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> The current implementation of the SysCArgs array purposively leaves out
> the C arg 0 and arg 1.
>
> Currently some users seem to be interested in having access to those args.
> Well, arg 1 for sure.
>
> Since the enhancement has not been released yet, it seems to me it would
> be okay to change the implementation to include all the C args. I'm in
> favor of that.
>
> Is there any objection to changing the enhancement to include arg 0 and
> arg 1 at this point?
>
> --
> Mark Miesfeld
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite
> It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production
> Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
> Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap2
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
