On 4/11/19 12:02 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Chet, Hi.
> I hope that can shed light on the motivation a bit. Pass got hit by > this a bit ago: > https://git.zx2c4.com/password-store/commit/?id=367efa5846492e1b0898aad8a2c26ce94163ba24 I note that the pipe-for-small-enough-heredocs works for this case. > Anyway, the more interesting thing is discussing what a proper fix > would be. Do you see anything conceptually wrong with the NONBLOCK > approach I suggested? In theory, would that work? I'd prefer the fork-a-child-and-let-it-do-the-writing approach. The question is where to place it on a list of issues. > Another thing I was > curious about is - what about internally treating "x <<y" as "echo y | > x"? Are these somehow not quite equivalent because x is in a subshell > in one but not the other, or something like that? And if that's so, > would my NONBLOCK suggestion incur similar issues? They're quite semantically different -- subshells, pipes, different expansion semantics, among others -- and result in additional, possibly unexpected, issues. For instance, consider what happens in your script when someone runs it on a bash version that has been compiled for strict posix conformance, including xpg_echo being on by default. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
