Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tronsbox!bleys
From: bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: PIPEs
Message-ID: <273cfa64-a75.2comp.sys.amiga.tech-1@tronsbox.xei.com>
Date: 11 Nov 90 09:00:20 GMT
References: <3761@mindlink.UUCP> <1990Nov9.172608.22937@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu
Lines: 22


Ken Yarnell writes:
>Make people change?  Nobody's using a pipe character, now!  We're talking
>about AmigaDOS, not Un*x.  Not everyone on the world (and I would hazard a
>guess that not even most) comes home from a day at Eir Un*x box, and fires up
>Eir AmigaDOS shell.  There is no compelling reason that Randell and the
>others should try to reshape AmigaDOS in the image of a Un*x shell...

Many of us DO use a pipe character thanks to Bill Hawes WShell, and many of
us DO use UNIX as much as we use the Amiga shell.  Why mess with something
that works?  UNIX and AmigaDOS are the only operating systems I've worked on
with the capability to do multitasking on a command line.  Why >shouldn't<
the command syntax be compatible?

I'm confused about this whole argument...  The | character works well in
WShell for both pipes and logical OR.  I've never had a script written by
ANYONE that failed with WShell, whether they were using it themselves or not.

/****************************************************************
 *          All of the above copyright by the below.            *
 *         Bill Cavanaugh       uunet!tronsbox!bleys            *
 *    "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy."        *
 ****************************************************************/