Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: BSD script program.
Message-ID: <6484@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Apr-87 02:54:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: mimsy.6484
Posted: Tue Apr 28 02:54:03 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Apr-87 05:08:44 EDT
References: <7141@brl-adm.ARPA>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 25

In article <7141@brl-adm.ARPA> franco@MIKEY.BBN.COM (Frank A. Lonigro) writes:
>.. the script program [once] used pipes to capture typed in commands
>and the commands output into a file called typescript. ... if one tried
>to 'more' a file it wouldn't work (a bug that I am not sure was ever
>fixed, also trying to 'vi' a file bombed). ... Has the script program
>ever been fixed to work correctly with pipes ... ?

Script is not at fault, and there is nothing there that can be
fixed.  The problem is with the whole notion of `interactivity'.
More, vi, and other programs---indeed, all programs that use
stdio---assume that if the standard input and output are `typewriters'
(if isatty()) is true), the program is interactive.  If not, the
program is not being used interactively and need not behave interactively.

This is fine for

	grep ... | sed ... | awk ...

but fails miserably for script.  Short of altering all programs
that misbehave, there is nothing that can be done.  Ptys work around
this; but the more proper solution is to redefine `interactive' and
rewrite the system.  But I am not going to attempt it.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
UUCP:	seismo!mimsy!chris	ARPA/CSNet:	chris@mimsy.umd.eduR