Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 08:52:27 +0100
From: Thomas Eifert <EIFERT AT reze-1 DOT rz DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Subject: Re: output redirection in version 2
To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Reply-To: eifert AT rz DOT rwth-aachen DOT de
Organization: Rechenzentrum RWTH Aachen

Aaron replied:
> 
> >[deleted]
> 
> >This is a mess in the DOS shell environment, but is it a feasible
> >fix for version 2?
> Is there a reason you have to use command.com?  Many replacements
> support this sort of thing...and really, what would the alternative
> be?  Syntaxwise, it would be necessary for the name of the logfile
> to be fixed (in $GO32, probably); that would also be rather awkward.
> ...

1.: there *are* reasons for command.com - not everybody has the
    alternatives, and some of these are so smart that on some cases
    software that relies non command.com won't run
2.: one could easily think about a convention for the logfile (in
    *IX-like OSses it's done this way), say <>.lst for the compiler's
    output etc.
    
Thomas