On 26.04.17 22:04,
carlglassberg@gmail.com wrote:
Correction:
"Should this be rewritten so the previous command is the input filename parameter of the next command?"
C0.a * C1.b <C0.a> C2.c <C1.b> ...
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 12:09:40 PM UTC-7, carlgl...@gmail.com wrote:
If I have a sequence of Oberon Commands, where the first receives its input from a marked text viewer, what is simplest way to chain the output of each Command to be the input of the next Command:
C0.a * C1.b C2.c ...
(Commands shown with no parameters)
Should this be rewritten so the previous command is the output filename parameter of the next command?
C0.a * C1.b <C0.a> C2.c <C1.b> ...
(Filename parameters shown with angle brackets, but the angle brackets are not really present, just here to differentiate parameter filename from previous Command of same name)
I don't want to explicitly mark a text viewer output so it is treated as input,
other than marking the input to the first Command.
I am assuming output text viewer gets named the same as the Command that opened it.
The name of the output text viewer is determined by the procedure that
creates it. There is no mechanism which may generate names of viewers
according to a certain rule.
I don't think that creating viewers as intermediate areas to hand over
date is the best solution because this probably will pollute the display
space. You might consider to establish a protocol and a new parameter
type for commands which allows for specifying data format and channel.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)