Re: Correction:BC vs. BX (was: XyWin sounds)

[Robert Holmgren holmgren@xxxxxxxx]

** Reply to note from Jane Van Tassel <101233.342@xxxxxxxx> 23 Jan 97 01:37:41 EST
 
> So I ask again, can anyone tell me whether there are identifiable circumstances
> in which "BX...Q2" *doesn't* work? Is this a difference between XyWin and Xy4?

Well, BX won't work if the command you're issuing needs an argument -- unless
you've taken care to provide some alternative method of passing an argument, or
of loading S/G 00 up with the argument (a main role of S/G 00 is to read and
contain arguments). Sure, there are circumstances in which BX won't work while
BC will. But that's because it's narrowly written for BC! For example,
suppose you know there's a command on the command line. Suppose you want to
issue it several times, if some test is passed. So you loop back and just
issue XC again -- no need to rewrite the command, you know its still sitting
there. You can't do the comparable thing with BX, you can't just go back and Q2
something that was BXed a while back. You follow me?

But if you write with BX in mind, it works. In principle, I can't think --
offhand -- of any situation where BX can't be made to do the work formerly
handled by BC. And, almost always, to do it much more quickly, more elegantly,
with far less intrusion or racket. In the comparison mentioned above, what you
might lose by having to issue a command in full a couple of times (or code it
differently, e.g. use a SUbroutine), you gain by not having to read and restore
the pre-existing command line. By not having to write to the screen at all! Big
advantages.

BX functions identically (I think) in XyWin and Xy4.


-----------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxx
-----------