T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
34.1 | a work-around | TOOK::DITMARS | Pete | Fri Dec 15 1989 14:38 | 42 |
| Hi Art,
I'm too new to the MCC group to give you an "official" reply, but I'm sure the
powers that be around here appreciate you pointing your problem out.
Here's an unofficial suggestion for a work-around.
How about adding a command to the system command table, like the following:
define verb MC
cliroutine MCR
cliflags(foreign)
To do that, put the above three lines in a file (MC.CLD) and do a
$ SET COMMAND/TABLE=SYS$LIBRARY:DCLTABLES/OUTPUT=SYS$LIBRARY:DCLTABLES MC.CLD
You could even do it as part of your product installations, since you're
relying on "MC" to mean "MCR" anyway and you never know what target machines
will be running MCC.
regards,
Pete
p.s.
In your installation kits, you'll need to do one of the following to get the
actual definition of the MC command into your process' command table:
$ SET COMMAND MC.CLD ! using the above MC.CLD file, using VMI$KWD
! etc.
$ SET COMMAND/TABLE=SYS$LIBRARY:DCLTABLES
! after you've successfully added the MC
! command to DCLTABLES using the
! SET COMMAND/TABLE/OUTPUT command
p.p.s.
My work-around suggestion is probably a huge violation of some DCL
clearinghouse recommendation, and someone will come slap me around soon. 8^)
|
34.2 | somewhat easier than that... | CASEE::ANKAN | Pick the C-Frame | Mon Dec 18 1989 09:42 | 9 |
| I use the following in my SYLOGIN.COM
$ MC*R :== MCR
simple, works well and does not require any DCLTABLE modification...
I did however come accross one or two installation procedures (which does
a DEL/SYMB/GLOB/ALL), which fail due to MCC... anyway installation procedures
should not use MC or even MCR to invoke images...
|
34.3 | A change is already underway... | KEEL::SAVAGE | Peter Savage | Mon Dec 18 1989 13:51 | 10 |
| Art,
Thanks for your note. The MCC CLD WILL be revisted for external
field test of the product. We have outlined and submitted our proposed
syntax to the DCL review board and we are currently working through
the process. One this has been completed. MCC will no longer use of
the MCC DCL verb.
Thanks
Peter
|
34.4 | Thanks for the Quick response
| MEIS::DULMAINE | | Wed Dec 27 1989 11:25 | 15 |
|
GENTLEMEN; Pete Ditmars, Mr ANKAN and Pete Savage
Thanks for the Quick response on this. I think that the
real issues was the MCC verb. I'm glad to see that MCC verb
will no longer be used in External FT.
This will be a great product as it evolves.
Regards
Art Dulmaine
MEIS
|
34.5 | What is the current status? | KYOA::KOCH | My brother did not lose the election | Sun May 06 1990 10:07 | 1 |
| Is there a current update on the MCC DCL verb?
|
34.6 | new MANAGE syntax | GOSTE::CALLANDER | | Tue May 08 1990 12:34 | 19 |
| Yes, with the release of the EFT update kit (due out shortly), the
MCC verb is going away. The new syntax uses the MANAGE verb as the
base keyword for all of the "MCC" components.
The following are examples of the new sytax:
(Please note that some changes are still underway in finalizing
this syntax.)
manage/enterprise replaces MCC
manage/toolkit/dictionary replaces DAP
manage/toolkit/help_builder replaces MCC$HFB
manage/toolkit/parse_builder replaces MCC$PTB
I think you get the idea. We will be distribuing VMS level help
for inclusion into your on-line help library with the EFT update.
This will describe the new syntax in detail.
jill
|
34.7 | And cleanup as well? | NSSG::R_SPENCE | | Mon May 14 1990 23:28 | 4 |
| An I presume, you will update our DCL tables to REMOVE the current MCC
verb as well in the EFT Update?
s/rob
|
34.8 | done for x0.10.0 baselevel | PETE::BURGESS | | Tue May 15 1990 12:26 | 3 |
| Yes, this has been done for baselevel x0.10.0...
and will be done for the eft update kit.
\Pete
|