On 15/02/15 21:59, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On 02/15/2015 01:48 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 2/13/15 12:19 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> I was expecting bash to handle SIGPIPE specially here,
>>> as in this context it's informational rather than an indication of error.
>>
>> I don't agree. It's a
On 02/15/2015 01:48 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 2/13/15 12:19 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> I was expecting bash to handle SIGPIPE specially here,
>> as in this context it's informational rather than an indication of error.
>
> I don't agree. It's a fatal signal whose default disposition is to
> ter
On 2/13/15 12:19 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I was expecting bash to handle SIGPIPE specially here,
> as in this context it's informational rather than an indication of error.
I don't agree. It's a fatal signal whose default disposition is to
terminate a process, which is exactly what happens in y
