peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/20/91)
ISIS had a nice feature, the remainder of the command line, after the program name, was passed on standard input of the command. I've often thought this would be a nice way of doing things: you could even have a "stdcmd" file descriptor for this purpose. Then instead of piping stuff to xargs, you could pipe the output of find right into the stdcmd of the program. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
kenw@skyler.arc.ab.ca (Ken Wallewein) (03/21/91)
In article <_+3A9C8@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
ISIS had a nice feature, the remainder of the command line, after the program
name, was passed on standard input of the command. I've often thought this
would be a nice way of doing things: you could even have a "stdcmd" file
descriptor for this purpose. Then instead of piping stuff to xargs,
you could pipe the output of find right into the stdcmd of the program.
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
I've always thought xargs was a bit of a kludge. When I wrote PIPE, a PD
shell extension for VMS, I added an couple of operators to the usual set of
piping operators ("|", ">", etc.): "+" means "execute the following command
(repetitively if necessary) with piped data as arguments rather than data".
"?" is the same as "+", except it asks for approval before each execution.
It works so slick(ly?) I miss it elsewhere.
"stdcmd" sounds like a good idea.
--
/kenw
Ken Wallewein A L B E R T A
kenw@noah.arc.ab.ca <-- replies (if mailed) here, please R E S E A R C H
(403)297-2660 C O U N C I L