Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!convex.cl.msu.edu!jap
From: jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: PIPEs
Message-ID: <1990Nov8.153353.28823@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 90 15:33:53 GMT
References: <53407.657565922@atronx.UUCP> <15706@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 15

jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes:

$ >In article <53407.657565922@atronx.UUCP> rwm@atronx.UUCP (Russell McOrmond) writes:
$ >>Here's WHY you wish them to be un-named this way you KNOW that the names are
$ >>unique:  I now do some convaluted task+timer thing to try to make sure I have
$ >>a unique name.  With the number of times I use it, it's inevidable that the same
$ >>name gets used twice.

$ >	No, unique names are trivial (I used to think we should add a "unique
$ >filename" call until this was pointed out to me:  Use the current system time
$ >(Note: I mean CurrentTime(), not DateStamp().)  This is guaranteed to be an

This only works if everybody agrees on how to generate unique names.
Providing a specific "UniqueName" call would create a standard way.
UnqiueName() could simply be a macro if you'd like.