Date:Mon, 8 Apr 2019 23:36:39 -0700
From:pepa65
Message-ID:
| When in the past I proposed this syntax:
| cmd >>>var
| the idea was to commit the output of a command into memory (in the form
| of a variable), without requiring a pipe or file.
In general
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:32:38PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> The idea is basically just to do
>
> var=$( cmd )
>
> right? But without a fork. That's something that can be done today,
> no new syntax needed (bash might even do it sometimes, I don't know, the
> FreeBSD shell does.)
wool
On 4/9/19 8:36 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Bash always forks for $() as far as I'm aware, which is why bash 3.1
> introduced printf -v var.
It's not, but it was a nice side effect.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hipp
Since originally raising this issue with dkg (leading to this email
thread), I've only followed along from a bit of a distance. But it does
look like there's been some good progress: there's now a commit that
fills the pipe up to the OS's maximum pipe size, and then falls back to
the old (buggy, vu
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:05 AM Robert Elz wrote:
> Note: I am not suggesting bash should change - using files for here docs
> is the way they were originally implemented (in the Bourne sh) (though it
> had bugs, which could leave the files lying around in some cases).
>
> However, using files for
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:19 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> Just like that one time L. Walsh tried to write a bash boot script that
> used <() to populate an array, and it failed because she was running
> it too early in the boot sequence, and /dev/fd/ wasn't available yet.
@Chet, Isn't bash suppose
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 10:10:44PM +0800, konsolebox wrote:
> @Chet, Isn't bash supposed to use named pipes alternatively, and
> dynamically? Or does it just decide what to use based on the current
> system?
The second thing. On platform X, bash uses named pipes. On platform Y,
bash uses /dev/f
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:39 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> That's incorrect in this context. We're talking about boot scripts here,
> not interactive user shells. In boot scripts, on every operating system
> I've ever used, the shell being used is either POSIX sh or Bourne sh.
>
> Everyone who write
On 4/9/19 10:10 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:19 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>
>> Just like that one time L. Walsh tried to write a bash boot script that
>> used <() to populate an array, and it failed because she was running
>> it too early in the boot sequence, and /dev/fd/ wasn
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:28 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 4/9/19 10:10 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:19 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >>
> >> Just like that one time L. Walsh tried to write a bash boot script that
> >> used <() to populate an array, and it failed because she was
On 4/9/19 11:25 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:28 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>>
>> On 4/9/19 10:10 AM, konsolebox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:19 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
Just like that one time L. Walsh tried to write a bash boot script that
used <() to populat
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 11:28 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 4/9/19 11:25 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:28 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/9/19 10:10 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:19 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> Just like that one time L. Wa
On 4/9/19 10:25 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:39 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> That's incorrect in this context. We're talking about boot scripts here,
>> not interactive user shells. In boot scripts, on every operating system
>> I've ever used, the shell being used is either PO
On 4/8/2019 9:19 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> | Optionally, I would accept that
> | an implementation would support forward seeking as some equivalent
> | to having read the bytes.
>
> I suppose one could make pipes do that, but no implementation I have
> ever seen does, so I don't think yo
14 matches
Mail list logo
