🚀 go-pugleaf

In  <1990Nov26.103402.2714@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> (26 Nov),
Loren  Rittle (lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) writes:
> [responding to my comments about the usefulness of 'non-linear' pipes...]
> OK, I see what point you are making now, I concur with you about
> this.  I just want it to be clear that there is nothing wrong with
> AmigaOS which inhibits the use of `filters' and `pipes' (unnamed
> unix style!). I do agree that the named pipe mechanism is quite
> powerful, but I want unnamed pipes also (I currently have them and
> use them quite often on my Amiga).  [....]   Let's have both.

I think really there's not much distance between us.  I certainly wouldn't
want to destroy the facility for in-line pipes in commands, for those
who have it.  I don't see any use in throwing away a simple mechanism
that makes sense for a lot of purposes, just for the sake of a clumsier
one that is SOMETIMES useful!  I, also, don't see why we can't have both,
especially if the added facilities are through a PIPE command external
to any shell.

>
|> [...discussing MORE and LESS's failings with pipes.]
>
> I guess the point I tried to make is that if all the standard
> commands and commands written by others don't work as filter (as you say)
> because they don't like reading from or writing to pipes then
> they will not work with the new ideas for multiple named pipes.

Sorry -- I wasn't trying to argue against that.  It just seemed
that your experience with those programs was contrary to mine.

> [......]
> BTW, The double-space problem is the same one I encountered.  This is
> not a feature! It's a bug!

For sure!  I just thought you meant a total failure!

And, as to my further comments...
|> Could it be, I wonder, that your "Bug-Free" ARP system is not quite so..?
|> (:-)) (:-)) [....]
>
> Humm, (:-) :-)) guess not as I have looked into the piping problems quite
> extensively with and without ARP...
>

And in  <ben.3578@epmooch.UUCP> (27 Nov),
Rev. Ben A. Mesander (ben@epmooch.UUCP) writes:
>
> I don't think so. I use ARP commands exclusively, and the MORE command
> accepts input from a pipe just fine, albeit with the same weird
> double-spacing that you get without ARP. I don't think this is one of
> the things that ARP has broken. Please, people, don't blame every
> little problem you may be having on ARP - some of us use it rather
> reliably. It's like the PC users who blame everything on viruses...
>

Yes. I apologise for somewhat hasty conclusions.

                                            -- Pete --