the only issue I've encountered with this so far is that 'dd' will fail some of
its tests because it's not using of= but instead using the redir operator and
then it assumes it's NOT open in append mode ;)) so then it tries to seek past
EOF (which doesn't work in append mode) to make holes(of z
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 10:57 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 5/16/19 4:25 PM, howaboutsyne...@protonmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hi. Would bash devs even consider replacing the current behaviour of ">"
> > (redirection) to do the equivalent of the following(under the ho
On 5/16/19 4:25 PM, howaboutsyne...@protonmail.com wrote:
> Hi. Would bash devs even consider replacing the current behaviour of ">"
> (redirection) to do the equivalent of the following(under the hood) ?
I doubt it. That's not how it's defined to behave, and there's no good
reason to do it.
>
Hi. Would bash devs even consider replacing the current behaviour of ">"
(redirection) to do the equivalent of the following(under the hood) ?
When:
`command > $somewhere`
then actually do(under the hood):
: > $somewhere
command >> $somewhere
ie. create&truncate file, then open it in append m
Feel free to write a patch.
RR
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:08:34 -0600
Bill Gradwohl articulated:
> My original post was only to suggest that instead of more bells and
> whistles, talent should be applied towards the documentation of what
> is already there.
Bill, it is a well known fact that the developers of a product are
usually
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
> I find it rather ironical that your rant should amount to a clumsy
> rewording of section 6.1, GNU Manuals, from the GNU Coding Standards:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/GNU-Manuals.html#GNU-Manuals
>
> Followed that link and
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:08:31AM EST, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
[..]
> The man page is written the way Robbie the Robot used to speak in the old
> black and white TV days¹. Short, cryptic and in many cases unintelligible IN
> THE DETAILS. Alternatively, one might snicker that some lawyer wrote it to
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>> People complain about the readability of code enough already, and as
>> practice shows, things like [[ have been around and nobody uses them
>> anyway (often using just POSIX, but
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> People complain about the readability of code enough already, and as
> practice shows, things like [[ have been around and nobody uses them
> anyway (often using just POSIX, but not even knowing – myself included
> – that POSIX sh has $((…
Eric Blake dixit:
>powerful approach. Can we get buy-in from other shell developers to
>support '>;' as an atomic temp-file replacement-on-success idiom, if
Urgh, PLEASE NOT!
People complain about the readability of code enough already, and as
practice shows, things like [[ have been around and
2011/12/22 Bruce Korb
>
> When the exact opposite is the useful variation? I.e. keep-on-failure.
> "-i" for sed is simple, understandable and implemented a lot.
>
As far as I know, -i is only implemented with GNU sed and BSD sed, and they
are incompatible, BSD sed's -i takes a mandatory argument
cc: ebl...@redhat.com bug-bash@gnu.org d...@vger.kernel.org
miros-disc...@mirbsd.org
Subject: Re: '>;' redirection operator [was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 530]:
Support in-place editing in sed (-iEXTENSION)]
> On 12/22/2011 08:39 AM, David Korn wrote:
> > Su
assume that this is
like any other redirection operator, where an optional fd number can be
prepended, as in '2>; file' to collect stderr and overwrite file on
success?
When the exact opposite is the useful variation? I.e. keep-on-failure.
"-i" for sed is simple, understanda
>
> There are many commands other than sed that want the output to replace
> an input file. That is why I added the >; redirection operator to ksh93.
>
> With >; you can do
> sed -e s/foo/bar/ file >; file
> to do in place sed. The >; operator generates
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> I wonder if I should modify it so the implicit 2>&1 happens first, right
> after the pipe, so any user-specified redirections can override it. That
> doesn't seem that radical a change. Opinions? (I know what you think,
> Andreas ;-) ).
If
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 04:13:12PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> $ echo >&2 |& wc -l
>
>> I wonder if I should modify it so the implicit 2>&1 happens first, right
>> after the pipe, so any user-specified redirections can override it. That
>> doesn't seem that radical a cha
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 04:13:12PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > >> $ echo >&2 |& wc -l
> I wonder if I should modify it so the implicit 2>&1 happens first, right
> after the pipe, so any user-specified redirections can override it. That
> doesn't seem that radical a change. Opinions? (I know wh
> Greg Wooledge writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 05:21:04PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Still does not fix this case:
> >>
> >> $ echo >&2 |& wc -l
> >>
> >> 0
> >
> > That looks like the correct output to me. When setting up a pipeline
> > with redirections, the pipeline happens fi
Greg Wooledge writes:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 05:21:04PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Still does not fix this case:
>>
>> $ echo >&2 |& wc -l
>>
>> 0
>
> That looks like the correct output to me. When setting up a pipeline
> with redirections, the pipeline happens first.
>
> The manual s
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 05:21:04PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Still does not fix this case:
>
> $ echo >&2 |& wc -l
>
> 0
That looks like the correct output to me. When setting up a pipeline
with redirections, the pipeline happens first.
The manual says your example should be equivalent to
Chet Ramey writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:50:18PM -0400, m...@ice.filescope.com wrote:
>> >rm 2>&1 | grep --color op
>> >rm |& grep --color op
>> >
>> >Notice that they are behaving differently.
>>
>> Confirmed in 4.0.0 and 4.0.10:
>
> Interesting. Only for n
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:50:18PM -0400, m...@ice.filescope.com wrote:
> > rm 2>&1 | grep --color op
> > rm |& grep --color op
> >
> > Notice that they are behaving differently.
>
> Confirmed in 4.0.0 and 4.0.10:
Interesting. Only for non-builtin simple commands a
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:50:18PM -0400, m...@ice.filescope.com wrote:
> rm 2>&1 | grep --color op
> rm |& grep --color op
>
> Notice that they are behaving differently.
Confirmed in 4.0.0 and 4.0.10:
imadev:~$ rm 2>&1 | tr '[:lower:]' '[:upper:]'
USAGE: RM [-R
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: i686
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -DPROGRAM='bash' -DCONF_HOSTTYPE='i686'
-DCONF_OSTYPE='linux-gnu' -DCONF_MACHTYPE='i686-pc-linux-gnu'
-DCONF_VENDOR='pc' -DLOCALEDIR='/usr/share/loc
25 matches
Mail list logo
