Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccicpg!nick
From: nick@ccicpg.UUCP (Nick Crossley)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: ksh incompatabilities with sh?
Summary: Some terminals have ^ but not |
Message-ID: <36911@ccicpg.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jun 88 19:37:17 GMT
References: <16094@brl-adm.ARPA>
Reply-To: nick@ccicpg.UUCP (Nick Crossley)
Organization: CCI CPG, Irvine CA
Lines: 20

In article <16094@brl-adm.ARPA> rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) writes:
>Do people *actually* still use ^ for pipes? This is the kind of thing
>that should be eradicated from existence. 
>
>	   bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
>     {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen

Some terminals have ^ but not |.  An example is the Wang 2236 DW or DE, used
on the Wang 2200 processor.  CCI sells a system which can replace the 2200
processor, but run the same Wang Basic software and use the existing wiring
and terminals.  Since these terminals do not have any of the characters
{}\`|, Escape or Control, using Unix on them is near impossible, so we insist
on supplying at least one normal terminal.  However, there have been times I
have needed to do something on a user's Wang terminal, and I have typed ^ to
use a pipe.  On those few occasions, I have been very thankful for the synonym.

-- 

<<< standard disclaimers >>>
Nick Crossley, CCI, 9801 Muirlands, Irvine, CA 92718-2521, USA
Tel. (714) 458-7282,  uucp: ...!uunet!ccicpg!nick