in reply to Execute by order

Aside from the earlier pertinent contributions made, on this thread, by the other monks, I would point out that, if i understand you correctly, if you persist with ...using files and "while" as a queqe at its simplest, then you won't be able to do ...someone of those at same time, - especially on Windoze.

A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Execute by order
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 13, 2009 at 11:28 UTC
    if you persist with ...using files and "while" as a queqe at its simplest, then you won't be able to do ...someone of those at same time, - especially on Windoze.

    Why? In particular, why - especially on Windoze?

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
      ...depends on the implementation I suppose - I took it to mean using while to iterate thro' a list of simple commands i.e. no parallelism.

      On *NIX, I submit it is easy to modify the command strings to run a command in parallel ... which, IIRC, isn't possible on Windoze.

      A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))
[reply]
[d/l]
        On *NIX, I submit it is easy to modify the command strings to run a command in parallel ... which, IIRC, isn't possible on Windoze.

        How would you do it on *nix?

        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
        I took it to mean using while to iterate thro' a list of simple commands i.e. no parallelism

        And that is correct, no parallelism

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom