> On May 18, 2017, at 11:37 AM, John Wilson via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > wrote: > > Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> As an RTS? Wow, that's doing it the hard way. In either RT or RSX >> emulation it would be easier, you have a friendlier development >> environment that way. I've done an application as an RTS in the long-ago >> past (an implementation of QUBIC, 3D 4x4x4x tic-tac-toe for a classmate) >> but that was on V5B, where an RTS was the only way to do assembly >> programming on RSTS. > > This was for the command-line interface, which I needed to be absolutely, > totally, seriously ^C and ^^C proof if I was going to let random outsiders > dial up my RSTS machine. It worked nicely ...
Oh yes, that would be a possible reason. Binary mode I/O will also do that, though at a price that may be too high. Finally, in V9.0 and later, you can use a captive account to ensure that it can't escape the login.com file, which means that control/c may abort the program but it won't let the user into places you don't want to allow. paul