13 Jul
2019
13 Jul
'19
1:18 a.m.
I believe you are right. That was a typical implementation method.
Deborah
On 7/12/19 3:45 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
If I recall this was one of the implementations that
wrote to a file
and then forked the next process after it got to eof.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:44 PM Deborah Scherrer
<dscherrer(a)solar.stanford.edu <mailto:dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu>>
wrote:
I didn't do this port, so don't know the details. But it was done in
the late 70s (I think) and had broad distribution. When I collected
various Software Tools versions, I was not able to find the VMS
one. Sorry.
Deborah
On 7/12/19 1:45 PM, Paul Winalski wrote:
curious
On 7/12/19, Deborah Scherrer
<dscherrer(a)solar.stanford.edu
<mailto:dscherrer@solar.stanford.edu>> wrote:
> There was also an extensive port of the
Software Tools to VMS,
done by
Joe
Sventek at LBNL. Included at the key tools, the shell, pipes,
everything. Felt completely like Unix.
How did the LBNL Software Tools for VMS
implement pipes? I'm because DEC itself did a product in the mid-1980s
called DEC Shell
that was a VMS port of the Bourne shell and associated utilities. I
wrote a VMS device driver that implemented pipes as a true VMS
pseudo-device, similar to VMS mailboxes but with true Unix pipe
semantics.
-Paul W.
--
Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual