Marc Herbert wrote: > Bob Proulx a écrit : > > > Note that if 'cat' didn't exactly reproduce the contents of input on > > > the output I would consider that a grave bug. > > Well... GNU cat has a number of options, and almost every single one is > munging the output :-)
And they aren't desirable in the program![*] > > > Instead of using $(cat SOMEFILE) it is better to avoid the extra > > > process and use $(< SOMEFILE) instead. It is built into the shell and > > > is the right way to do that task. > > It is more efficient but I think it is not standard. Thank you for that information. I actually hadn't realized that it was bash only. However in this context of command line use and being discussed in bug-bash then in my defense I will say that I think it is okay to use a bash specific construct there. :-) But I would have said "built into bash" in that case instead of generically "the shell" and will try to do so in the future for when mentioning that feature. :-) Bob [*] See "Program design in the UNIX environment" by Rob Pike and Brian W. Kernighan for a rationale on this with words such as "But none of these options are appropriate additions to 'cat'; the reasons get to the heart of how UNIX programs are designed and why they work well together. ... 'cat' therefore shouldn't transform its input."
