Message-Id: <m0z0oPH-000S5fC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:47:26 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Ispell and pipes
References: <m0z0mHb-000S4AC AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980727165644.779D-100000@is>
Precedence: bulk

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
> 
> > From bash you can pipe more than 2 programs. 
> > Suppose the editor opens ispell and the ispell needs to do the same 
> > with other tool (I doubt that's the case but is totally possible).
> 
> If you mean something like spawning a pipe "foo | bar | baz", then I 
> don't think we need more than one of these (the last in the pipe) to be 
> run multitasked, since the pipe, even if it has several stages, has only 
> two ends.  In other words, we usually don't care what does foo pass to 
> bar and bar to baz, we only care about what baz writes to the screen.
> 
> Did I miss something?

Don't know. But the way I'm using to implement my shell experiment allows it 
and I don't see why you say it.
Suppose the editor reads the output of ispell and ispell process some 
informationn through a third party ... what's strange here? and we must 
switch between 3 tasks.

SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013