[ resend with the intended sender address ]
I wrote:
It does. If you can stand a conditional sequence, you may go for this
also fairly ridiculous look: (&& (a) (epf (b) (> file))), e.g.
(&& (sleep 5) (epf (ls) (> "foo.txt")))
.. which, however, loses the output of the first command (a). That
could
be captured with an excess of ridiculosity that I don't want to
recommend,
(&& (epf (ls) (> "foo.txt"))
(epf (date) (>> "foo.txt")))
Probably I'm just experiencing pre-sleep dullness, or you may have to
build your own sequencing form. (The process notation is not beyond
criticism.)
rthappe
|