In einer eMail vom 24.02.00 12:24:36 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Maybe I wasn't clear enough, my posting was referring to situations in which > one > has to "glue" together the execution of multiple scripts, not necessarily > all of > them written in Rebol. A motivation could be legacy applications (if we call > "legacy" whatever is already there and we won't/can't modify/rewrite). > To give a real example, I need to integrate a number of Perl scripts with > Rebol > scripts; I'm doing that via a main shell script - though this detail is not > relevant. In my case it's not a question of legacy software - I had to write > some pieces in Perl because I need to access a RDBMS, something I can't do > today > in Rebol. > So the "driver" script (the high-level shell script in my case) needs to > know > what's going on with the execution of the Perl and Rebol scripts. Perl poses > non > problem, but with Rebol I can't use the same mechanism. Of course I can have > it > worked out - I was wondering if anybody else felt my same need. > I think the matter may be considered on the level of "design principles" or, > in > some sense, on the "philosophycal" side of what one expects from a > programming > language... > > Ciao > > Mauro > Why not using perl for the main-script, it can start external programs, so also rebol. i think rebol can write to stdout, so simply pipe the result to perl? i don't know mutch perl, if it can make bidirectional pipes when starting, both can even communicate over it. i searched for perl with bidirectional pipes once a bit, but did not find them. So if you know, please tell :) Gruss Volker
