Path: utzoo!utgpu!tmsoft!dptcdc!dpmizar!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: how do I tell the size of a pseudoterm window?
Message-ID: <9127@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 9 Dec 88 23:25:28 GMT
References: <2081@vedge.UUCP> <14020052@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <14020052@hpisod2.HP.COM> decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes:
>> In article <964@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:
>> >No no no no.  Layers are like BSD job control :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 
>> Not at all.  You must be thinking of so-called "shell layers" ...
>How many :-)'s *should* Stephen have put on his posting in order for
>them to be recognizable to your parser?

The problem was, there was no way to tell what he thought was funny
about his posting.  Perhaps he thought that AT&T's once-heard claim
that "shell layers" were functionally equivalent to BSD job control
was funny.  There is no reason to even think of real layers in
conjunction with job control; they're independent of each other (and
I use both at the same time).

Two of us responded to clarify for those who may have been misled
that the "job control" flavor of "layers" (i.e. "shell layers")
wasn't what we were talking about.  This may have saved somebody
some confusion.