Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: /dev/stdin:  why not call it "-"?
Message-ID: <7071@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jun-87 11:15:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: mimsy.7071
Posted: Tue Jun 16 11:15:25 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jun-87 03:23:00 EDT
References: <7359@brl-adm.ARPA> <5856@brl-smoke.ARPA> <15318@onfcanim.UUCP> <1098@hropus.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 23
Summary: Inconsistent

In article <1098@hropus.UUCP> ka@hropus.UUCP writes:
>"-" is certainly easier to type than "/dev/stdin" and is already somewhat
>of a UN*X convention.

But only somewhat.  The convention has always been a wart.  One of
the wonderful things about Unix is its simple naming scheme.
Everything is a file.  Want to see a file?  `cat foo'.  Want to
see a directory? `cat .'.  Want to see what is on a tape?  `cat
/dev/tape/rdefault' [*].  In V8 processes became files, through
/proc.  This is the right way to go.

>... Even if you want a kernel solution and prefer the name "/dev/stdin"
>I would still be inclined to stick a check in nami rather than using a
>device driver, just as a matter of style.

I guess style is in the eye of the beholder.  Will you check for
/dev/stdout and /dev/stderr too?  But what about /dev/fd/17?

-----
[*] Or /dev/rmt0 or /dev/rst0 or some other convention.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	seismo!mimsy!chris