Sender: crough45 AT amc DOT de
Message-Id: <97Jun6.181715gmt+0100.16642@internet01.amc.de>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:21:30 +0100
From: Chris Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Why not fork() etc. specific for for shell usage?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Peter J. Farley III wrote:

> Why can't DJGPP implement sufficient tasking to just support shell
> pipes and redirection, which only involve standard I/O, and
> synchronous subshells for () and `` operations?  

Let me see if I'm understanding your thought, by rephrasing:

The proposal seems to be to implement things like the backquote
operation when the DJGPP-compiled program is parsing its command 
line?  You don't really need fork() for that at all.

If that's the case then I can see a couple of reasons against it:

1) Size.  Adding things to the parameter parsing code increases 
the size of the executable (therefore the loading time as well 
as disk space).  We already have a number of people complaining 
about the size (and granted most of them haven't bothered to do 
-s when compiling, but they're still there).

2) Some DOS shells (notably 4DOS) already do their own things
with shell characters like backquotes which are not compatible.
Of course, this objection is only true for programs run from the
command line as opposed to from (say) bash scripts or makefiles.

Otherwise, if neither of those is an important factor, I'd say
that your suggestion is good.  It's something I thought of and 
rejected for the above reasons, but I'm willing to be convinced 
that they're not relevant.

Of course, you then have to get someone to code it and maintain
it.  Any volunteers to see if it's feasible?

If I've misunderstood your intent, please forgive me and try 
again.

Chris C