> Is there a more elegant way to do the following PIPE structure: > 'PIPE (ENDCHAR ?)', > ... /* some stream of records */ > '| p: PICK ... > '| t: TAKE ... > > ... /* only the records that pass all the filters come here */ > '?', > 't:', > '| f: FANINANY', > > ... /* all the records that were filtered out come here */ > '?', > 'p:', > '| f:' > > What irks me is needing the last 3 lines. As more filters get added more > of these trivial connections are required.
> I'd really like to be able to connect the secondary output streams from > multiple stages in the same pipe (in this case PICK and TAKE) directly to > the pipe that collects the rejected records (in this case the pipe with > FANINANY). If I read the PIPE syntax correctly there's no alternative, > but I'm hoping I've overlooked some technique. For longer pipes, I try to put sections close together, using an extra FANOUT (labeled STEP2 below). The overhead is nearly zero: when FANOUT detects it has only one output-stream it SHORT's itself out (that is: its input and ouitput get directly connected, the Master Plumber told me). Applied to your sample: 'PIPE (ENDCHAR ?)', ... /* some stream of records */ '| p: PICK ... '| t: TAKE ... ... /* only the records that pass all the filters come here */ '|STEP2: Fanout', /* pass everything down to STEP 2 */ '?p:|f:', '?', 't:', '| f: FANINANY', ,/* Ready to execute STEP 2 -----------------*/ '?STEP2:', .... Kris, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
