🚀 go-pugleaf

>Jerry Hollombe posted:
>CP/M is marginally more helpful.
>It repeats the entry that puzzled it, followed by a question mark:
>
>     A:mrgl
>
>     mrgl?


When I read your posting, I immediately remembered WHY that was done.
If you used a printing terminal and typed
	du#ioops###r
and got back
	dior?
you'd realize that the command name was mistyped.
Replacing the "?" with ": not found" would be nice,
but that would be very verbose in the CP/M mindset.

Why oh why don't DOS commands give USAGE messages?

>mya...@cbnewsm.att.com (m.yamin) posted:
>The ancient Bell Labs BESYS-7 Fortran II compiler (ca. 1966), for the
>even more ancient IBM 7094, would, if sufficiently provoked, tell you:
>	PLEASE RUN THIS PROGRAM ON SOME OTHER MACHINE
>This was a batch system with 2-hour turnaround, so Fortran "syntax error"
>diagnostics could get pretty oppressive.  At least this one was amusing.

Again, this message may not be so silly.
I'm using a network of different machines, so we have executables
for 80386, RISC and other CPUs.  Running a non 80386 executable on a
80386 is not interesting, so the "run on another machine" is
strangely appropriate.
Certainly better than "cannot execute" "bad magic" or "(!@$$ not found".

Jeffrey Jonas
jeffj@synsys.uucp