On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 11:28 PM Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > > On 4/9/19 11:25 AM, konsolebox wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:28 PM Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > >> > >> On 4/9/19 10:10 AM, konsolebox wrote: > >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:19 PM Greg Wooledge <wool...@eeg.ccf.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Just like that one time L. Walsh tried to write a bash boot script that > >>>> used <() to populate an array, and it failed because she was running > >>>> it too early in the boot sequence, and /dev/fd/ wasn't available yet. > >>> > >>> @Chet, Isn't bash supposed to use named pipes alternatively, and > >>> dynamically? > >> > >> No. It's a build-time decision, and /dev/fd is preferred. > > > > Why not make it load-time at least? > > Maybe someday, but it's extremely low priority.
Yeah, and also perhaps lazy initialization is better. Using load-time means it doesn't matter if /dev/fd gets fixed later through initialization of udev, etc. -- konsolebox
