Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:29:53 +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: <8i7vb5$ieq$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000614162810.841C-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 14 Jun 2000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> A truckload of batchfiles substitutes the normal
> executables. But you cannot pipe stuff into batchfiles, usually, so
> the usual pipes of PBM utitily calls passing data from one to the next
> didn't work.

It should be possible to invoke the batch files via an inferior 
COMMAND.COM, as in "command /c batch1.bat | command /c batch2.bat ...", 
no?  That should work, since COMMAND.COM is just another program.