Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!opusc!yarnall From: yarnall@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Ken Yarnall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: PIPEs Message-ID: <1990Nov8.035305.14484@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> Date: 8 Nov 90 03:53:05 GMT References: <2193@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> Organization: Math Department, University of South Carolina (ahem; The USC) Lines: 36 In article <2193@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: +Sure, and lets do away with the convention of requiring whitespace between the +command and arguments, and between argument too. :-) Okay, okay -- I exaggerated a bit. It's just that I spent my formative years coding FORTRAN... + +Seriously, if it weren't for the ability of Unix shells to accept the pipe +operator without delimiting whitespace, it would be a complete non-issue. +Nobody would even think to question it. What in the world makes you think that? It seems as obvious as any other evolution that has taken place that allows greater flexibility. I hereby declare that, even if Unix shells didn't allow whitespace surrounding pipe symbols, I would have thought of it. In fact, as I recall, when I first started using pipes, I placed whitespace around them because it looked right, not because I read about it in the man pages. I also didn't put whitespace around the symbols when I wanted to crunch lots onto a line (I have this paranoid thing about real long command lines), without being told that it was a great `feature' of csh that I could decide which way I wanted to do it. Unix is a marvelous invironment, and every modern operating system probably owes it a bit of homage, but it is not the sacred chalise of All that is Right and Holy. +-larry ken -- Ken Yarnall /// yarnall@usceast.cs.scarolina.EDU Math Department, USC \\\/// yarnall@ucseast.UUCP Columbia, S.C. 29208 \\\/ (803)777-5218 `You'd better tie me up.' -- from the movie, "Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down"