At 08:56 μμ 31/1/2002 -0800, you wrote: >At 11:48 PM 1/31/2002 -0500, you wrote: >>I was wondering if there was a way to change or "enhance" standard >>S*Basic commands. >> >>I'm pretty sure that this is impossible from Basic but what about machine >>code... for example instead of writing an x_Print x,w,z,d,s command, >>redefine the standard Print command to be extended (I suppose that there >>MUST be a way to do this, as TK2 for example does it) > >I think what you are getting at is that TK2 takes the original definition >of, say EXEC, to include the option of having arguments, i.e. EXEC foo;"bar". > >I believe how this is done is that TK2 includes a resident procedure >called EXEC and this newer EXEC takes precedence over the older definition >in the name table. > >I hope I interpreted your question and I hope I'm right in my answer. > >Tim Swenson > >
I thought so too but I am not sure... maybe Norman or Marcel could answer that... Nevertheless if this is possible, then we could "cook up" a couple of GD2 like commands for Aurora machines running even Minerva (If Minerva allows this)... For example we come up with a BGIMAGE command that would be updated to Change Aurora's register's first and then load up a Aurora format SCR file for example, or a Block command that could do realtime translation of the colour codes to Aurora's format and then do what block does... granted it probably will be a little slow but the gain in available S*basic colour enabled software would be great :-) Phoebus
