[Info-vax] DCL's flaws (both scripting and UI)

[David Froble]

Bob Gezelter wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 1:12:25 PM UTC-5, abrsvc wrote:
>> Having worked on code that was a replacement for DCL, I would vote for an add-on environment that could be "called" from a shell DCL procedure.  I agree with Hoff in that the file extention should be different as well.  Whether C64 (for 64bit DCL) or CMD for a "command" file is a good fit can be debated.  The bottom line here is that the process context and environment created by process creation with teh DCL cli should remain.  It should be easier that way.  Why recreate the wheel as far as process context is concerned.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> abrsrv,
> 
> .CMD is already allocated (to RSX-11 MCR).
> 
> - Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com

It might be very difficult to find any 3 letter filename extension that 
isn't already in use somewhere by somebody.  If you really want 
something different, then you'd probably be looking at things such as:

.DCL2_COMMAND_FILE

or

.DCL_2_CMD_SCRIPT

And, perhaps a bit more descriptive, and, perhaps more typing, which 
raises again the command recall buffer discussion ....

:-)