It executes boot scripts written in one of several interpreters. proposal for improvement: It executes boot scripts written in one out of three different scripting languages (see below).
Hi Ulrich, I think this works as intended for the following reasons: 1. "One of several" is scalable language. 2. We don't know much longer the forth loader is expected to exist. 3. The simple loader is not a scripting language, it has no control structure. That said, these manuals could use some love, so I appreciate your thought on this.
Hi Alexander, Many thanks for taking the time to respond in such an elaborate manner. The point I was trying to make is that "scripts written in ... interpreters" is, technically speaking, nonsensical, because a script can only be written in a language not "in an interpreter" because an interpreter is a program. The script is later on interpreted by an interpreter. I also think that using the word "scripts" implies that there will be an interpreter that understands the script. In this sense, the simple loader can be categorised as an interpreter—even though it doesn’t support control structures, it still reads a script and reacts to its contents. That said, and taking into account your valuable points, I would like to suggest the following improvement: It executes boot scripts written in one of several scripting languages, depending on which interpreter is called. One important condition is implied by this wording: there is only one interpreter active for the whole process, i.e. mixing different scripting language is not possible. An even simpler improvement could be: It executes boot scripts written for one of several interpreters. I’m not complaining about the documentation in general—I only want to iron out parts that could easily be misunderstood.
Hi Alexander, I re-opened the report only now because I didn't know that I had to change the status when I first commented it. Please see my elaborate comment #2. Kind regards