Anonymous user
Talk:User defined pipe and redirection operators: Difference between revisions
Talk:User defined pipe and redirection operators (view source)
Revision as of 12:08, 13 September 2011
, 12 years ago→Yet another task without a task: the "&" operator is a language "kudos" if achieved.
(→Yet another task without a task: the "&" operator is a language "kudos" if achieved.) |
|||
Line 13:
:: As a general rule, languages already implement routines where on object's output can be taken by another as input. In fact, it's hard to think of any language which implements objects which does not implement something like message passing. Even functional languages let you pass the output of one function to another function. So... that seems a bit trivial? And if you are going to require one of them starts before the other completes, that gets into time slicing or multiprocessing or co-routines? But some OS pipe implementations (*cough*windows*cough*) buffer the full output from one command before starting the next... --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 10:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
::: I'm looking for "User defined pipe and redirection operators" in particular. However - you are right - how the actual commands are run (sequentially or concurrently) is relevant. {Naively I was thinking nobody would want to actually implement "MSDS" sequential (MSDOS caches intermediate result in a file, faking piping, without multitasking)... oh... Microsoft did and conquered the world.... sigh}
:::BTW you don't need to actually do any message passing, or multitasking. It can be done totally within one process using co-procedures.
:::However (I believe) the "&" operator requires at least threads. And... I just figured out how to define "&" in Algol68... cheers! :-) I'll make the "&" operator a language "kudos" if achieved.
Adhere to the syntax of the specific language where required, eg the use of brackets and names of operators.
| |||