#PathMan Volume ??
12 messages in this thread
The potential of the "PathMan" PathHandler that comes with Bill Hawes'
excellent WShell finally soaked into a relatively thick skull and I just
started experimenting with it. Would someone who has been using it assure
me that the Volume "Tao" that shows up as [Mounted] following the "Mount
path:" command (and an assignment involving path:) is both associated with
and necessary to the PathHandler? (I'm sure that this is a really dumb
question since 'tao' is an ideal volume name for a path: device. 🙂
And, what can be done with the associated icon that shows up on the
workbench screen … I'd like not to see it or to have it automagically
placed where it's not obtrusive?
REC
——
Bob,
Glad to hear that you like the name of the PathHandler volume (Tao)
-usually it just evokes a puzzled look.
There's a trick you can use to give the Tao volume a custom icon rather
than Workbench's default image (and position.) _Before_ mounting and
accessing the PathHandler, make an assignment of
assign disk.info: sys:myicon.info
Then when Workbench tries to read disk.info from Tao:, it will read your
chosen icon file instead.
-Bill Hawes
I like the TAO: name too…. it goes real well with my YIN:, YANG:, and
YUNG: partitions 🙂
Seriously, your Pathman is a real lifesaver. It's particularly useful now
that I have both 2.0 and 1.3 installed. I don't have to keep duplicates of
the non-OS libraries/l/devs/c/sys/etc that I was afraid I'd have to.
Can keep the non-OS-specific stuff in a seperate directory in their own
drawer, and just PathMan them with the correct OS stuff. Very slick.
Thanks.
–jp–seattle–
Its also great for keeping things like separate directories of product
specific fonts or arexx scripts rather than roll them all into the single
FONTS: or REXX: directory. Makes product upgrades much more manageable.
Indeed — very slick.
David – via Whap!
I hadn't thought of the REXX: duplication! Thanks for reminding me. I've
found some progs require that their ARexx stuff be in REXX:, which is
really stupid in my opinion. I don't want tons of programs, macros, etc in
one directory.
But PathMan would solve that, wouldn't it? Thanks again.
–jp–seattle–
Bill –
Well, I'm a crossword puzzle freak and it finally clicked that Pathman
provides "path(s) of virtuous conduct." I am truly chagrined that the
facility to concatenate directories was right there on the WShell disk all
this time and I was just too dense to take advantage of it … sigh!
As a result, I installed FComp (the filename completer) that you also
provided with WShell and am rapidly becoming dependent on it as well …
not just because I'm a lazy typist, but because it's fascinating to watch
in operation … not to mention the keymapping capabilities.
And, thanks for the tip on the Tao: Icon.
REC
——
Bob,
Glad to hear you're exploring and enjoying the various WShell utilities!
One of the challenges in developing software is to provide enough
flexibility to cover the needs of a diverse set of users without making the
package too complex. I've approached this my structuring WShell as a group
of interacting utilities so that one doesn't need to learn the full
capabilities just to use the simpler features.
-Bill Hawes
Bill:
So when is WShell 2 shipping <grin>
Regards Charles
Charles,
WShell 2.0 will be announced shortly after Commodore releases AmigaDOS 2.0
enhancer packages to the general public. Check with your local Amiga
dealer for the availability of the enhancer packages …
-Bill
Hi, Bill! One crazy question – CBM just released a new Install program at
the last Dev Con. (Before anyone jumps down my throat, CBm said this was
one of the "nice" things we could talk about.) Although ARexx is present in
2.0, the new Install program uses scripts written in a dialect of XLisp!
What gives?
The Install program was written by David Joiner and Joe Pearce, and it's my
understanding that they already had a LISP-like engine that could be
adapted to the job. I think the intent was to have a free-standing
executable that had no dependencies on other software.
Certainly the install scripts could have been written as ARexx programs,
but this would assume that ARexx had been previously installed.
-Bill Hawes
Bill –
IMHO you've certainly achieved that goal. Indeed, the philosophy is
obviously continued in the 'seamless' way that Conman, WShell, and ARexx
fit and work together.
REC
——