Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!oliveb!mipos3!omepd!merlyn
From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: No no... bad and wrong solutions within (Re: Skipping the "More" promt)
Summary: curiouser and curiouser
Message-ID: <4855@omepd.UUCP>
Date: 25 Aug 89 19:51:31 GMT
References: <1377@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> <4841@omepd.UUCP> <1396@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US>
Sender: news@omepd.UUCP
Reply-To: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz)
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
Lines: 35
In-reply-to: swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan)

In article <1396@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US>, swan@jolnet (Joel Swan) writes:
| Sorry, I forgot to mention that these work-arounds are performed from within
| RN.  They work fine when using RN.
| (Well, at least they seem to work without a hitch so far.)
| Does this make a difference Randal?  Or is it still not kosher?

Wow!???!!

You have demonstrated evidence that:

   s|/dev/tty

works?  I'll bet my UNIX guru card (#42) that it doesn't, or rn(1) has
some very spooky code in it.  You are saying:

"take the article, and feed it into the stdin of a PROCESS running
the command-or-shell-script found in the file /dev/tty."

I'd believe:

   s /dev/tty

and

   s|cat

both work, but not the "combination" of piping and /dev/tty.  It
makes no sense.

Still hanging on to my guru card... :-)
-- 
/== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ====\
| on contract to Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA                           |
| merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn	         |
\== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/