page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (12/30/87)
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) wrote: >Why would [WSHell] pipes require you to be running conman? PIPE: is >a completely seperate device... conman (the handler) is also a pipe handler. Since that's what Bill's most comfortable with, that's what he used. You can still use PIPE: for named pipes, of course. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.edu ulowell!page "I've never liked reality all that much, but I haven't found a better solution." --Dave Haynie, Commodore-Amiga
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (01/03/88)
In article <2295@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>, page@ulowell.UUCP writes: > peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) wrote: > >Why would [WSHell] pipes require you to be running conman? PIPE: is > >a completely seperate device... > conman (the handler) is also a pipe handler. Since that's what Bill's > most comfortable with, that's what he used. You can still use PIPE: > for named pipes, of course. Well, any chance of gettin' Bill to permit the use of PIPE:? I prefer not to have to use CONMAN. The extra features of CONMAN have a negative value to me (I like to watch my free memory while checking out programs, for instance, so I don't like my commands going into newly AllocMemmed space. Makes me feel I have a bug), and the features I'd like to see in a console handler aren't there (Escape sequences to program function keys and menus, clipboard cutting and pasting, etc...). The idea of using a console handler for a pipe seems kind of weird to me, anyway. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.