Jan Schampera wrote:
> I intentionally expected <() and >() to be as protected as $() is. Is
> there a specific reason for them to not be protected against the
> initial parsing?
Those sequences are not treated specially, but it's a reasonable
suggestion for a future enhancement.
Chet
--
``Th
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:29:19 -0400
Chet Ramey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here was an interesting bug which was some what unexpected.
> >
> > cat <(find ./ -iname t{1,2,3})
> >
> > this is a valid command according to bash due to a bugged expansion
> > of {1,2,3} and the process expansion. It
> Here was an interesting bug which was some what unexpected.
>
> cat <(find ./ -iname t{1,2,3})
>
> this is a valid command according to bash due to a bugged expansion of
> {1,2,3} and the process expansion. It becomes three commands:
>
> find ./ -iname t1
> find ./ -iname t2
> find ./ -iname
