Chris Angelico wrote:
>> // This leaves stdin and stdout and stderr unaltered
>>"fgrep -e test").run("sort").run("wc");

>If Pike were a shell language, this would make sense. But I would much

It would make sense, for any programming language, not only for
shell languages.

>prefer this:

>sizeof(Process.check_output("fgreb -e test") / "\n");

>Pike isn't primarily about invoking subprocesses; it has a rich set of
>text processing primitives built-in, so trying to make subprocess
>chaining smoother is usually a waste of effort.

If it would be a *lot* of effort, I'd agree.  But I'm guessing that
it actually is easier to implement than you might expect; and then it
makes for a very clutterfree and straightforward way to start one
or more (piped) processes.

Reply via email to