Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AREXX, a plea, and an egoboo.
Message-ID: <1819@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 88 13:18:38 GMT
References: <900@nuchat.UUCP> <1961@dino.ulowell.edu> <6042@swan.ulowell.edu> <1965@dino.ulowell.edu>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 19

Well, looks like I was wrong too...

In article <1965@dino.ulowell.edu>, miner@dino.ulowell.edu (Rich Miner) writes:
> The WShell uses the pipe handler implemented as part of ConMan.  This
> handler is named PIP: and must be mounted before the piping facility can
                   ^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> be used."

Looks like the piping in ConMan *is* done correctly, after all. Now if only
ConMan itself was set up the same way.

Now then, if I use (say) Ed Puckett's "P:" device and name it "PIP:" can I
then use WShell without having to put up with ConMan? Or does it (as I suspect
from Bill Hawes mention of special packets) not look like a regular PIPE:
device?
-- 
-- Peter da Silva      `-_-'      ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.