Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!opusc!yarnall
From: yarnall@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Ken Yarnall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: PIPEs
Message-ID: <1990Nov11.225559.2778@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 90 22:55:59 GMT
References: <3761@mindlink.UUCP> <1990Nov9.172608.22937@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu <273cfa64-a75.2comp.sys.amiga.tech-1@tronsbox.xei.com>
Organization: Math Department, University of South Carolina (ahem; The USC)
Lines: 53

In article <273cfa64-a75.2comp.sys.amiga.tech-1@tronsbox.xei.com> bleys@tronsbox.xei.com (Bill Cavanaugh) writes:
+
+Ken Yarnell writes:

Er, Yarnall.

+>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.  

I, for one, probably use csh as much or more than the Amiga Shell.  Don't
have the pleasure of owning WShell, but I may look into it after I get 2.0,
if it offers significant advantages.

+					 	    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?

Better question:  Why should they be?  Actually, the real question is, should
the writers of the Amiga Shell feel compelled to mimic Un*x tradition?  I
don't think it is something that they should worry about.  

+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.

What should I say?  I just like -> more.  I think it would be easier to parse
command lines if the syntax were separate (Don't have to worry about the
context.  Really, given the structure of AmigaDOS, where the Shell doesn't
bother with patterns, the shell shouldn't *have* to be worried with whether a
symbol is a pattern-matching symbol or not.  Just break the command line
apart using the redirection symbols, and execute the resulting commands with
the resulting arguments, setting the appropriate io streams.), anyway.  

But you're right; this is getting old.  I think I may quit this debate, now,
secure in the knowledge that I am, of course, right :->

(and, of course, the pun in the above smiley face is intended ;^)

+ *         Bill Cavanaugh       uunet!tronsbox!bleys            *

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"