Re: Transparent task to task

On 6/3/2025 4:44 AM, Marc Van Dyck wrote:

Arne Vajhøj was thinking very hard :

Now the topic is up.
>
Am I the only one wondering why so much documentation use the
TYPE command to activate?
>
It bothers me a bit to have the TYPE command execute code.
>
$ type 0"myusername mypassword"::srv.com
$ define/nolog sys$output sys$net
$ show time
$ write sys$output "Deleting all files"
$ exit
>
$ type 0"myusername mypassword"::"task=srv.com"
    2-JUN-2025 18:56:35
Deleting all files
>
$ type 0"myusername mypassword"::"srv.com"
$ define/nolog sys$output sys$net
$ show time
$ write sys$output "Deleting all files"
$ exit
>
$ type 0"myusername mypassword"::"0=srv.com"
    2-JUN-2025 18:56:35
Deleting all files
>
Inserting two characters and type becomes execute.

 I don't see anything wrong with that. In the first syntax you are
activating the FAL object (implicitely, because it is tightly integrated
with RMS) to display the contents of the file ; in the second syntax
you are activating the TASK object and are asking to display (hence the
TYPE command) the output from the execution of a procedure on the remote
system. It's the equivalent of talking to two different IP ports. For
the first systax you would be talking to FTP (nothing really closer to
FAL than that, sorry) while for the second one you would be talking to,
for example, REXEC...

I know the mechanics.
And I realize that:
* it is not something in TYPE - it is all in RMS and
   DECNet
* TYPE is convenient for task, because it reads until
   EOF and displays
But it still bother me to have TYPE execute. It is syntax in
the P1 argument that fundamentally changes behavior of the verb.
 From a "common" non-modifying verb to a potential modifying verb.
But I can count. So far 3 does not see a problem while 0 see a
problem.
:-)
Arne