[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] terminal split
|
From: |
Vesa Jääskeläinen |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] terminal split |
|
Date: |
Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:31:09 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) |
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> BTW, I would like to obtain the capability of handling pipes, so that we can,
> say, "help | more". I guess you have the same idea in your mind. This should
> be trivial, once the input and output are separate, right?
I think this would need separated streams design in order to be
functional. Not a bad idea as such.... I am wondering the gain however.
What kind of implementation plan did you have for piping in example more?
Re: [PATCH] terminal split, Vesa Jääskeläinen, 2008/11/04
- Re: [PATCH] terminal split, Robert Millan, 2008/11/04
- Re: [PATCH] terminal split, Colin D Bennett, 2008/11/04
- [RFC] Multi-terminal support (Re: [PATCH] terminal split), Robert Millan, 2008/11/07
- Re: [RFC] Multi-terminal support (Re: [PATCH] terminal split), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2008/11/22
- Re: [RFC] Multi-terminal support (Re: [PATCH] terminal split), Robert Millan, 2008/11/22
- Re: [RFC] Multi-terminal support (Re: [PATCH] terminal split), Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2008/11/25