Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc! From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: PIPEs Message-ID: <2188@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> Date: 4 Nov 90 19:37:07 GMT Lines: 44 Return-Path: To: van-bc!rnews In <890@public.BTR.COM>, eeh@public.BTR.COM (Eduardo E. Horvath eeh@btr.com) writes: >In article <1990Nov3.073201.8227@agate.berkeley.edu> pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes: >> >> >>In <53407.657565922@atronx.UUCP>, Russell McOrmond (rwm@atronx.UUCP) writes: >>> In a message posted on 2 Nov 90 09:15:42 GMT, >>> pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) wrote: > >>> PG>make the Shell suitably smart -- AND design a suitable syntax. (Avoid "|" >>> PG>please!) > >>> What's wrong with that notation? >>> If you don't like that, what do YOU suggest. > > > What about "=" ? It even looks alot more lile a pipe than "|". I think >that the only place "=" will cause problems would be when using something like >set or in scripts where you are doing comparisons. In scripts, just look for >"==" or ">=", etc. Set can be modified to allow something like: > >set FRED 55 > or >set "FRED=55" > >both give the same results (i.e. FRED=55.) Is there anything else that using >"=" as a pipe would break? I don't see anything wrong with the '|' as pipe character, since the context for each use of it is absolutely clear. In the case of PIP: (using Conman), you must delimit the pipe character with whitespace, but that isn't a big deal to me. Since the '|' is already in use in regular expressions, overloading it for pipes seems to me to be preferable to using another character and making it special too. -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+