Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!rufus!singer@ibm.com
From: singer@ibm.com (David Singer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
Subject: Re: -T and named pipes
Message-ID: <527@rufus.UUCP>
Date: 19 Feb 91 00:05:30 GMT
References: <521@rufus.UUCP> <11483@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Sender: news@rufus.UUCP
Reply-To: singer@ibm.com (David Singer)
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center
Lines: 22
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <11483@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes:
>
>That would be fascist.  What if you want to use -T or -B to find out whether
>a pipe is returning text or binary data?

Is it possible for the nature of the data being returned to change from text
to binary and back again?  And wouldn't reading data from the pipe consume
it (or is it possible to reread the first part)? 

>
>Better would be to hide the -T/B behind a !-p, in my hubristic opinion.

After I figured out what was hanging up the script, I did modify it to skip
pipes (hey, it was only the second perl program I'd typed in!).  I was just
surprised to have an example from the book act so strangely.

I freely admit I'm a Perl novice and pretty much a rookie at Unix in general.

--  
David Singer -- Internet: singer@ibm.com   BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN
                Voice: (408) 927-2509      Fax: (408) 927-4073
(amusing disclaimer du jour goes here)