Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!
From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: PIPEs
Message-ID: <2215@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 11 Nov 90 19:23:22 GMT
Lines: 35
Return-Path: <lpami!lphillips>
To: van-bc!rnews

In <1990Nov10.230424.29716@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu>, yarnall@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Ken Yarnall) writes:
>In article <2203@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
>+In <1990Nov6.190147.10534@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu>, yarnall@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Ken Yarnall) writes:
>+>
>+> [my contribution to the pipe symbol debate removed]
>+
>+And you don't see using two characters when one would do as overkill? You don't
>+mind having Yet Another Restriction On Filenames? (yes, I have a few filenames
>+with '->' in them).
>
>Well, no, I don't.  We use `>>' for append, and noone is unhappy about that.
>This, to me, is just another logical extension of the "What to do with my
>output" symbols.  And I think it looks like a pipe, so it won't be hard to
>remember.  And I've tried it out -- it isn't even too hard to type! :-)

Well, the 'append' is a logical extension of the redirection operator, and is a
lot easier to type than any two separate characters.

Funny... a '|' looks like a pipe to me.

>And, what are you doing with filenames having the redirection symbol in them?
>Isn't that a rather bad idea? 

I forget why they are there, but I had a reason at the time. I dn't see why it
would be a bad idea.

-larry

--
The only things to survive a nuclear war will be cockroaches and IBM PCs.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                 |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322  -or-  76703.4322@compuserve.com        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+