so has anybody made a shell that defaults to "cms" pipelines? is there a reasons it cannot be done? I would think it obvious and trivial compared to writing the pipelines in the first place.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 12:46 PM Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) via cctalk <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, third attempt at this, this time with the appropriate > Subject header. > > --lyndon > > ------- Forwarded Message > > From: Adam Thornton <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 09:55:30 -0700 > Message-ID: <CAP2nic0E= > [email protected]> > To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society <[email protected]> > Subject: [TUHS] Re: Pipes (was Re: After 50 years, what has the Impact of > Unix been?) > List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list <tuhs.tuhs.org> > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 8:20=E2=80=AFAM Dan Cross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Unix pipelines, on the other hand, tend to be used in a manner that is > > strictly linear, without the fan-out and fan-in capabilities described > > by Morrison. Of course, nothing prevents one from building a > > Morrison-style "network" from Unix processes and pipes, though it's > > hard to see how that would work without something like `select`, which > > didn't yet exist in 1978. Regardless, Unix still doesn't expose a > > particularly convenient syntax for expressing these sorts of > > constructions at the shell. > > > > > Rick Troth has recently published xfl, which is pretty much CMS Pipelines > for Unix. > > https://github.com/trothtech/xfl > > He's got a slide deck on it at > http://www.casita.net/pub/xfl/pervasive-vmws-2024.pdf . > > There are a lot of really cool things you can do with fanin/fanout. > > Adam > -- --Carey
