🚀 go-pugleaf

cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes:

>In article <2533@zipeecs.umich.edu> (Ralph Seguin) writes:
>>Anybody got any idea when C= is going to get around to writing true pipes
>>(ala UNIX)?  I suppose that I'm probably going to get flamed all over
>>the place for this one 8-)

>You wouldn't happen to be confusing pipes with the bit of syntactic
>sugar (the vertical bar) that the UNIX shells offer would you? If
>you can define "true pipe" it would help to answer the question,
>if you want the syntax I would suggest WShell, a commercial shell from
>Bill Hawes which offers this. I don't believe this is available in the
>2.0 Amiga Shell (yet?, it's only beta). Anyway, looking forward to
>the definition you give...

Chuck, I believe Ralph is referring to the need to specify an name
with the standard 1.3 pipes. This is more like SYS V named pipes
than the ones created by pipe(). Nameless pipes are provided
by ConMan, which I would recommend to anybody anyway.

BTW, anybody written a pipe() for Lattice C yet ? Or a dup()/dup2() ?
The latter two can probably not be implemented the way Lattice
open()/close() work. You need a reference counter for the file handle.

--
| lchristoph@Sun.COM     (Internet)              | 		Disclaimer: |
| ...!unido!sunmuc!lupe  (German EUNet, "bang")  | 	  My employer has a |
| lupe@sunmuc.UUCP       (German EUNet, domain)  |    non-exclusive license |
| ...!suninfo!lchristoph (Sun Germany customers) | 	     to my opinion. |