thank you
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 20:51 Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 7/10/21 6:03 PM, Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev wrote:
> > is this --branch bash-5.1-testing stilk actual, or should i use devel
>
> No. It's for pre-release versions of bash-5.1. If you want to keep up with
> development, use the devel branch.
On 7/10/21 6:03 PM, Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev wrote:
is this --branch bash-5.1-testing stilk actual, or should i use devel
No. It's for pre-release versions of bash-5.1. If you want to keep up with
development, use the devel branch.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
On Jul 11 2021, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> You're sending the stderr of generate to a subshell where the stderr()
> function is executed. But the stderr() function writes to stdout.
> Therefore, all of the output from generate is ultimately ending up going
> to the script's stdout, with potentially w
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 11:09:10AM +0100, earnestly wrote:
> What appears to be happening is that the output from standard error is
> being mixed into the function handling standard out, even more
> surprisingly that xtrace output is also being consumed and filtered as
> well.
First, xtrace (set -
you printf basically to stdout from stderr, ..maybe its that
if you'd change your stderr printf to >&2 maybe works, ..just saying, maybe
or change the order to 2> and then >
..maybe..
peace
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 12:09 earnestly wrote:
> GNU bash, version 5.1.8(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
>
GNU bash, version 5.1.8(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
I have attempted to use process substitution in order to feed the
output of a command into two filters, one for handling stdout and the
other for stderr.
Prior to this I was using POSIX sh and named pipes to achieve this but
decided to try
