On 3/27/14, 8:42 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> I certainly wouldn't be against a builtin that would return
> the same thing as /dev/fd/62 -- just one that doesn't try to
> walk an external path to perform internal functions (have looked
> several times at scripts that have shown such messages, and
> have yet to see any mention of /dev/fd/xx in the script, so I'm
> /presuming/ (sigh) that it is something internal to bash?
Process substitution, whose entire reason for existence is to turn a
(pipe) file descriptor into a filename. If you want to use process
substitution in a context where /dev/fd might not be available, make
sure you don't tell bash to use it at build time or use another
scripting technique.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU [email protected] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
