On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Dan Douglas <orm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't like &> to begin with. It makes the already cryptic redirection > syntax > that beginners struggle to understand even more confusing by adding a > pointless shortcut with a non-obvious meaning instead of just being > explicit. > If you don't understand the copy descriptor and all of a sudden see yet > another use for the & character to the left of a redirection operator, > you're > going to be even more confused. > -- > Dan Douglas > > I completely agree with this. The '>&' syntax that's synonymous with '&>' is even worse for confusing beginners. There isn't really a point to adding this feature, imo, since it's easy to do it the regular way and it's more explicit/obvious what you mean. I also think that >&3 2>&1 would be what &>&3 actually does, not >&3 2>&3. Sure, they're the same in function, but it's not the same as >file 2>file. Again, this is part of that confusion thing. The copy descriptor is already complicated enough, there's no reason to make it more so.
