Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!ima!ptlcamb!peterb
From: peterb@ptlcamb.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: How wrong is MS-DOS? (or: What
Message-ID: <1@ptlcamb>
Date: 18 Jan 91 19:38:00 GMT
References: <1991Jan6.232549.2764@isis.cs.du.edu>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:<1991Jan6.232549.2764@isis.cs.du.edu>:65270:<1@ptlcamb>:1130475728:000:1251
Nf-From: ptlcamb.UUCP!peterb    Jan 18 14:38:00 1991


>From article <PPESSI.91Jan12222745@spiderman.hut.fi>, by ppessi@niksula.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi):
>> [...]
>> 	See regex(3). So you are not ignorant about Unix? 
>
>No, I'm not.  The existence of regex(3) _supports_ my prosition on grep.
>That is: grep is a trivial tool that doesn't have any business being a
>separate utility.  In nearly every context where people recommend the
>use of grep, regex() is a _better_ solution.  For one thing, it saves
>the overhead of using pipes - passing the strings as procedure arguments
>is a lot more efficient (in this case, the pipe overhead is probably
>_bigger_ than the execution time of the whole pattern search).  Or, is

Right, a pipe only costs for the amount of data being passed through it.
I sure hope you don't think to cat the file and pipe the output into
grep like this:

	cat file | grep string

If you are, get a clue. You can redirect input into grep which doesn;t
use a pipe, Or you can even pass the file name to grep. Or even file
names to grep. RTFM first. Flame second, Duck third.
--
Peter Barada / ...!{harvard|bu.edu|think|uunet}!ima!ptlcamb!peterb 
Phoenix Technologies Ltd. / Peripherals Group / 617-551-5000 (USA)
Clone the Bone!!! / Opinions are mine; Phoenix cloned them from me...