🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <~|&^%V&@rpi.edu>, wrf@mab (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes:
| 
| The interactive shell 'expect' looks useful according to the long shell
| summary.  What is it and where would I get it?  Thanks.

Don Libes' 'expect' package comes from durer.cme.nist.gov near
pub/expect.shar.Z.

A Perl version with similar interfaces and the same functionality is
in the works (if you're not interested in learning TCL, but already
have some Perl experience)... see comp.lang.perl for details.

Just another Perl hacker,
-- 
/=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ==========\
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |
\=Cute Quote: "Intel put the 'backward' in 'backward compatible'..."=========/

In article <1990Nov13.212403.11129@iwarp.intel.com> merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) writes:
> In article <~|&^%V&@rpi.edu>, wrf@mab (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes:
> | The interactive shell 'expect' looks useful according to the long shell
> | summary.  What is it and where would I get it?  Thanks.
> A Perl version with similar interfaces and the same functionality is
> in the works (if you're not interested in learning TCL, but already
> have some Perl experience)... see comp.lang.perl for details.

And if you just want to stick to sh for the automation, do so. Why learn
a different language---whether TCL or Perl---if you don't have to?

Most ``interactive'' programs demand to talk to a tty; you'll have to
use a tool like pty (comp.sources.unix volume 23, or ftp 128.122.128.22)
to make them behave. But replacing ``telnet'' with ``pty telnet'' is a
lot simpler than learning a new language for automation.

---Dan

In article <7316:Nov1408:33:0390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> 
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes, quoting Randal:

>And if you just want to stick to sh for the automation, do so. Why learn
>a different language---whether TCL or Perl---if you don't have to?

Because, Dan, when we're too old to learn something new, we're already
dead and someone might as well just shoot us so the rest of the world can
get on with life.

TCL and Perl offer significant control advantages that are not simply
expressible in that ancient and tired tool, the shell.

Please stop disparaging other people's work, and please stop the constant
commercials for your own, at least on a daily basis.  There is a time and
a place for everything.

UNIX is an environment that well lends itself to multiple forms of
expression.  Pluralism is not a bug, but a feature.  

Learn something new every day.

--tom

In article <7316:Nov1408:33:0390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> Most ``interactive'' programs demand to talk to a tty; you'll have to
> use a tool like pty (comp.sources.unix volume 23, or ftp 128.122.128.22)
> to make them behave. But replacing ``telnet'' with ``pty telnet'' is a
> lot simpler than learning a new language for automation.

Of course TCL is a whole lot more portable than Perl or PTY. I can run
TCL on Xenix-286, with no PTY drivers and a compiler that gets the dry
heaves when faced with Perl.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com