🚀 go-pugleaf

In <890@public.BTR.COM>, eeh@public.BTR.COM (Eduardo E. Horvath  eeh@btr.com) writes:
>In article <1990Nov3.073201.8227@agate.berkeley.edu> pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) writes:
>>
>>
>>In  <53407.657565922@atronx.UUCP>, Russell McOrmond (rwm@atronx.UUCP) writes:
>>> In a message posted on 2 Nov 90 09:15:42 GMT,
>>> pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) wrote:
>
>>> PG>make the Shell suitably smart -- AND design a suitable syntax. (Avoid "|"
>>> PG>please!)
>
>>> What's wrong with that notation?
>>>                                  If you don't like that, what do YOU suggest.
>
>
>	What about "=" ?  It even looks alot more lile a pipe than "|".  I think
>that the only place "=" will cause problems would be when using something like 
>set or in scripts where you are doing comparisons.  In scripts, just look for
>"==" or ">=", etc.  Set can be modified to allow something like:
>
>set FRED 55
>	or
>set "FRED=55"
>
>both give the same results (i.e. FRED=55.)  Is there anything else that using 
>"=" as a pipe would break?

I don't see anything wrong with the '|' as pipe character, since the context
for each use of it is absolutely clear. In the case of PIP: (using Conman), you
must delimit the pipe character with whitespace, but that isn't a big deal to
me. Since the '|' is already in use in regular expressions, overloading it for
pipes seems to me to be preferable to using another character and making it
special too.

-larry

--
It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs.
    -D.Wolfskill
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                 |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322  -or-  76703.4322@compuserve.com        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+