Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!pete From: pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Pipe syntax... I think I'd better think it out again... Message-ID: <1990Nov28.100435.15959@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 28 Nov 90 10:04:35 GMT References: <1990Nov19.031449.25071@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1990Nov24.073600.10802@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Nov26.103402.2714@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 58 In <1990Nov26.103402.2714@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> (26 Nov), Loren Rittle (lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) writes: > [responding to my comments about the usefulness of 'non-linear' pipes...] > OK, I see what point you are making now, I concur with you about > this. I just want it to be clear that there is nothing wrong with > AmigaOS which inhibits the use of `filters' and `pipes' (unnamed > unix style!). I do agree that the named pipe mechanism is quite > powerful, but I want unnamed pipes also (I currently have them and > use them quite often on my Amiga). [....] Let's have both. I think really there's not much distance between us. I certainly wouldn't want to destroy the facility for in-line pipes in commands, for those who have it. I don't see any use in throwing away a simple mechanism that makes sense for a lot of purposes, just for the sake of a clumsier one that is SOMETIMES useful! I, also, don't see why we can't have both, especially if the added facilities are through a PIPE command external to any shell. > |> [...discussing MORE and LESS's failings with pipes.] > > I guess the point I tried to make is that if all the standard > commands and commands written by others don't work as filter (as you say) > because they don't like reading from or writing to pipes then > they will not work with the new ideas for multiple named pipes. Sorry -- I wasn't trying to argue against that. It just seemed that your experience with those programs was contrary to mine. > [......] > BTW, The double-space problem is the same one I encountered. This is > not a feature! It's a bug! For sure! I just thought you meant a total failure! And, as to my further comments... |> Could it be, I wonder, that your "Bug-Free" ARP system is not quite so..? |> (:-)) (:-)) [....] > > Humm, (:-) :-)) guess not as I have looked into the piping problems quite > extensively with and without ARP... > And in (27 Nov), Rev. Ben A. Mesander (ben@epmooch.UUCP) writes: > > I don't think so. I use ARP commands exclusively, and the MORE command > accepts input from a pipe just fine, albeit with the same weird > double-spacing that you get without ARP. I don't think this is one of > the things that ARP has broken. Please, people, don't blame every > little problem you may be having on ARP - some of us use it rather > reliably. It's like the PC users who blame everything on viruses... > Yes. I apologise for somewhat hasty conclusions. -- Pete --