> 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
