-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 John Summerfield wrote: > Patrick Spinler wrote: >> > > I would think Perl (which I can program, in a bumbling fashion) and > Python (with which I'm less familiar) better suited than bash. Both can > have more flexible means of handling variables, and both are easily > extended, where the need exists, with libraries written in C or C++. >
Entirely true - the point wasn't to do anything with best methods, it was merely a proof of concept. One of the comparisons I often hear between CMS pipelines and unix style pipes is that unix style pipes lack the ability to have stages that read and write multiple streams. Essentially I just wanted to see if, if fact, unix style pipes, or more broadly bash shell scripts, even *could* do the multi-io stream business. I think I've shown that bash scripts have that capability. Whether its reasonable is, of course, another debate, especially in light of the existence of much more mature and well understood unix native tools like perl. - -- Pat -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKir6+NObCqA8uBswRAn7dAKCBQtlSXkRBvqE1fMrfFUBlbdAiWgCfcR6f hoPuMMOSlBbuuHc7Ltdwj6I= =tvVj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
