Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:28:12 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: PBM Utilities
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10006141553060.6658-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000614172447.995F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> > I'm afraid I don't follow.  First, the binary mode is something that only 
> > exists at the application level; DOS itself doesn't know anything about 
> > it (it's the library which implements the distinction).  
> 
> Well, it's DOS's command.com emulating the '|' by a temporary file. And
> there are three instances of command.com participating in a command line
> like
> 
> 	command /c bat1.bat | command /c bat2.bat
> 
> (the one running the prompt, and the two explicitly started)

Sorry, I don't see how this is relevant.  All the shell does is open a 
temporary file and pass the handle to the application via the usual DOS 
inheritance machinery (in this case, the inheritance is passed from the 
top-level COMMAND.COM to the subordinate one and finally to the program 
run by the batch file).  The program then switches that inherited handle 
into binary mode when it starts.  Where's the problem?