Ken Hirsch wrote:
> The "<<" symbol already means something in the POSIX shell and I wouldn't
> want it to have a different meaning in the CI, especially since the POSIX
> functionality would be useful in the CI.

Why do people have a desire to see POSIX functionality be added to the CI?  Why
not just use the existing POSIX functionality via the POSIX shell or directly
from the CI?

The use of CI functionality and POSIX shell functionality doesn't have to be
mutually exclusive.  The CI can invoke POSIX functionality via:

:xeq sh.hpbin.sys '-c "command parm1 parm2 parm3 ...etc..."'
or
:xeq sh.hpbin.sys 'script parm1 parm2 parm3 ...etc...'
or
:xeq whatever.hpbin.sys 'parm1 parm2 parm3 ...etc...'

And the POSIX shell can invoke CI functionality via:

callci command parm1 parm2 parm3 ...etc...

The point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to restrict your thinking
to CI *or* POSIX.  You can mix the best of both worlds to achieve results not
possible using either language exclusively.
--
[log in to unmask]
Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve scarce California electrons...

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