Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!stretch.cs.mun.ca!sean2
From: sean2@stretch.cs.mun.ca (Sean Hogan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Pipes (attn steve koren...)
Message-ID: <1990Jun8.220529.16594@stretch.cs.mun.ca>
Date: 8 Jun 90 22:05:29 GMT
References: <21408@snow-white.udel.EDU>
Organization: CS Dept, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Lines: 28

In article <21408@snow-white.udel.EDU> kosma%human-torch@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma) writes:
>
>   No flames from me. I am all for Unix-like pipes, and use PIP:, as supplied with
>   ConMan. CBM's PIPE: device is just to restrictive for me. I don't know when
>   they are going to do them, but until then, I heartily recommend PIP:
>
>   -larry
>
>Yeah, and with the arp shell (at least) this works great.  I have a dilemma
>now, which is that I'm planning to switch over to SKsh, but from what
>I've garnered from the (immense!) docs, I can't do concurrent pipes.  
>...
>monty

This reminds me of something I've been going to ask for some time (nothing
to do with SKsh, sorry) ... has anybody else noticed when using the ARP shell
and concurrent pipes (with PIP:) that only the last command in the pipeline
can be interrupted?  I'm not necessarily talking about ^C interruption -
if you have a `find' being piped through `more' and hit q to quit the pager,
the find continues to completion in the background (producing no output).
I can reason out this behaviour easily enough; it's just annoying if the
early commands do lots of disk access.

	Sean.
---
Sean Hogan, graduate student           sean2@stretch.cs.mun.ca
Department of Computer Science,        sean2@stretch.mun.edu
Memorial University of Newfoundland    ...!uunet!garfield!sean2