From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: Emacs/grep problem
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:50:31 +0100
Message-ID: <NEBBIOJNGMKPNOBKHCGHGEDMCBAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-reply-to: <6480-Sat27Jan2001121754+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id HAA18353
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> and we cannot distinguish between -1 returned by a program and -1
> returned by _dos_exec and friends.  I don't think it is wise to keep
> the pipe running if some command cannot be found or cannot be run, is
> it?
Why not? bash, command.com and 4dos.com all do.
All three print their usual 'command not found' message, followed by
the output from wc.
So I don't see anything wrong with ignoring a -1 error status, except
if the -1 should indicate a serious problem that would actually prevent
the program from continuing normally.