In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rochester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for your advise. So, it turns out that fifos are quite useless > in Python programming then, which is quite disappointing to me :-( > > I am not saying that I _have to_ use fifo, afterall it is a rather odd > thingy not in fasion since the last iceage... I am just disappointed by > the fact that the old plain Bash seems to excel Python in this special > aspect. Not by a very great margin, but it is indeed very convenient for process creation and redirection, so when that's the nature of the task, it's likely the right choice. > I am new to Python and much more comfortable in Bash programming. A > simple Bash script like this would take the advantage of a fifo, hence > reduce the overhead of unneccesarry temporary files creation: > > #!/bin/bash > > mkfifo my_fifo > echo "this is a string in my fifo!" > my_fifo & > cat my_fifo > rm my_fifo > > Isn't it neat? If you like it, good for you. Do you understand why it works, when your Python one didn't? You put the output in a background process; did it occur to you to try that in Python? > Anyway, I think every scripting language has its pros and cons. Bash is > probably more flexible in dealing with fifos and multiway pipes (through > the magic menchanism of process substitution). Multiway pipes? Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
