🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6516@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
%In article <2156@trlluna.trl.oz> aduncan@rhea.trl.oz.au (Allan Duncan) writes:
%> I won't try and answer the original question (in part 'cause I haven't
%> looked at it in detail), but rather ask Steve _why_ he won't use Conman
%> pip: device?  I find that it works well, and _is_ a real pipe c/f pipe:
%> which is just a kludge.
%
%Perhaps because he's planning on distributing his program and wants to
%minimise the amount of third-party software that is needed to run it?

Hmmm.  Personally, I'd really like to see SKsh use ConMan's PIP: device.
To minimise the amount of third-party software *needed* to run it, Steve
could use PIP: if it's there, and not provide pipes if not.  Seems
better than the current situation to me.  I'm not sure offhand what the
distribution restrictions on ConMan are, but maybe Bill Hawes wouldn't
mind ConMan being distributed with SKsh.  This may not be
the case seeing as SKsh could be considered competition for WShell, but
has anyone asked?

Not using robust, complete, useful, easily obtainable software because
it's third-party seems silly to me.  Of course, all of this is just
based on the above conjecture.  If this is not the reason Steve isn't
using PIP: in SKsh, I'd like to hear what it is.

%That's one of the reasons I avoid ARP myself, actually. The other being
%that I just don't trust it.
%Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
%<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.

Dunno what there is not to trust about ARP.  The ARP stuff has always
worked better for me than the stock CBM stuff.  The amount of software
using the arp.library has made it a defacto standard, and a fairly good one
at that.  ARP's not perfect, but it's better than what it replaced.
Seems like you're shortchanging yourself Peter.

stephan(opinions mine alone);
  uunet!watmath!watcsc!stephan
		don't reply to w-stephm@microsoft, the account vanishes soon