Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!sci.kun.nl!cs.kun.nl!rhialto
From: rhialto@cs.kun.nl (Olaf Seibert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: PIPEs
Message-ID: <2424@wn1.sci.kun.nl>
Date: 9 Nov 90 20:01:59 GMT
References: <6977@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1990Nov4.054222.24999@agate.berkeley.edu> <6984@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1990Nov5.040638.6580@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: root@sci.kun.nl
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Lines: 23

In article <1990Nov5.040638.6580@agate.berkeley.edu> pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes:
>In fact the BCPL convention went further than this: the argument part of
>the command line was simply left in the input stream for the program to
>read; if it wanted it could keep ON reading that stream to get more
>arguments -- this is how the '+' mechanism works (or did prior to 2.0 --
>dunno if it does still).
>                                        -- Pete --

As I have been peeking though memory, it appears to be some Tripos
convention that FileHandles may have some buffer attached to them.
The argument line pointer that a CLI process receives simply points
into this buffer.
Of course, none of this is documented in the DOS manual. Nor should it
be, in my opinion. But just for the curious, would it be possible that,
when 2.0 has firmly settled, someone reveals the interesting details of
the Tripos data structures? Only when it would be of no use to anyone to
actually use the provided information?

I suspect that there would be some documentation of Tripos, somewhere.
Could I get a reference? A copy just might be in our local CS library.
--
Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert                               rhialto@cs.kun.nl
How can you be so stupid if you're identical to me? -Robert Silverberg