Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: WSHell & Pipes (was Current Directory in Titlebar)
Message-ID: <1341@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jan 88 00:56:08 GMT
References: <6359@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <2277@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> <2295@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 20

In article <2295@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>, page@ulowell.UUCP writes:
> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) wrote:
> >Why would [WSHell] pipes require you to be running conman? PIPE: is
> >a completely seperate device...

> conman (the handler) is also a pipe handler.  Since that's what Bill's
> most comfortable with, that's what he used.  You can still use PIPE:
> for named pipes, of course.

Well, any chance of gettin' Bill to permit the use of PIPE:? I prefer not
to have to use CONMAN. The extra features of CONMAN have a negative value to
me (I like to watch my free memory while checking out programs, for instance,
so I don't like my commands going into newly AllocMemmed space. Makes me feel
I have a bug), and the features I'd like to see in a console handler aren't
there (Escape sequences to program function keys and menus, clipboard cutting
and pasting, etc...). The idea of using a console handler for a pipe seems
kind of weird to me, anyway.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.