BC vs. BX: Holmgren's elucidation

[Jane Van Tassel 101233.342@xxxxxxxx]

As Holmgren has since pointed out, it was unwise of me to complain about
"BX...Q2" problems (i.e. that putting new "BX...Q2" in place of old
"BC...XC"
made my programs crash instead of speeding them up) without giving some
specifics. I'll have to try to deliberately reproduce the effect and give the
List a fuller account.

But meanwhile I *can* say that the argument which lay between "BX" and "Q2" was
of the simplest kind imaginable -- e.g.
		BC se /***/XC    versus    BX se /***/Q2
-- because that's almost the greatest sophistication my XPLs ever rise to. So
although Holmgren's and Distefano's subsequent contributions are interesting
(and I will archive them for future reference) don't really apply.

But, then, I learned most of what I know that's worth knowing in just the same
way -- staying up late when I was a child, listening to my elders talking over
my head about matters that I didn't then understand but have since discovered
were interesting and important.

Regards to all,
					Eric Van Tassel

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---


from 
> Robert: BX has always accepted native commands+arguments: BX lm 15diQ2  
> As opposed to JM/JH, which, of course, can't process, e.g.,
> JM 2.framename argQ2. What situation did you have in mind?

from 
Yeah, native commands, of course; I was thinking of RUN commands, where
 doesn't get passed... His question is, why can't we just auto-replace
BC...XC with BX...Q2, and I guess the best answer is, we need to analyse the
"..." part, the command itself.