Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!necisa!boyd
From: boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz (Boyd Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Why use U* over VMS
Message-ID: <1920@necisa.ho.necisa.oz>
Date: 6 Nov 90 23:10:31 GMT
References: <ANDYO.90Oct23101417@glasperl.masscomp> <1990Oct25.160937.28144@edm.uucp> <1089@dg.dg.com> <1380@tharr.UUCP> <69986@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: NEC Information Systems Australia Pty. Ltd.
Lines: 28

In article <1380@tharr.UUCP> sweh@tharr.UUCP (Stephen Harris) writes:
>How in VMS do you have filters and pipelines?
>eg, what would be the VMS (DCL?) equivalent of
>	getso - | tbl | pic | eqn | rof | col | sqps | lpr -Ppost < file
>
>>Is there an equivalent, or would it need a lot of temporary files?
>

It would be a lot of temporary files.  But look at it this way, you could
set up a file `stdout.dat' manipulated by a DCL script that ran all the
commands in sequence such that:

  process n's stdout.dat;N     == process n+1's standard input

  process n+1's stdout.dat;N+1 == process n+2's standard input

  etc...

It'd be marvellous, a different version of stdout for each output stage
of the pipeline.  All individually named by version number and _all_ of
them left lying around after the completion of the `pipeline'

The possibilities are endless!  :-)


Boyd Roberts			boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''