Thus it was written in the epistle of John Pollard,
> This situation seems to me like the obverse of the output redirection
> choices.  If ">" opens the output each time, thereby wiping out what was
> already in the file; and ">>" appends data to the file - why not have an
> additional input redirection symbol, "<<" which would not reposition the
> pointer to the beginning of the file for each read but read the next
> available record?

Because then the CI would need to either keep a record counter, so that it
could seek to the correct record of the file or else have kept the file open.
It's that "have kept" part that's what's sticky.  In other words, this should
work:

:comment get line 1
:input < myfile
:comment get next line
:input << myfile

But if we go that way, then when should the CI close a file it has open?  The
implications of it, by default, keeping open every file it opens are not
particularly good.

Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]), Info Sys, Southern Adventist University
          ==========================================================
Familiar things happen, and mankind does not bother about them. It requires
a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.
                         -- Whitehead, Alfred North
          ==========================================================
         Deep thoughts to be found at http://www.southern.edu/~ashted

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, etc *
*     please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html       *