On Monday, November 18, 2024, Martin D Kealey
wrote:
>
> That's valid, but how else do we get people to read the correct document
> for their skill level,
How is it our responsibility?
> I've used Bash for about 30 years, and even I have to wonder whether the
> Shell manual should start with t
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024 at 04:52, David Moberg wrote:
> That looks very complicated, how do interpret that? And where/when to run
> it?
>
To me this seems to have taken a wrong turn before the question was even
asked.
Just because readline has a "run a command" mode does NOT mean it's
necessarily th
Date:Sun, 17 Nov 2024 12:16:40 -0600
From:Mike Peters
Message-ID:
| * (Although I have yet to determine any purpose or significance of
| these redirections in the manual, other than simply not causing an error,
| as it "do[es] not affect the current shell envi
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 03:32 Chet Ramey, wrote:
> On 11/16/24 3:36 AM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
> I don't think a disclaimer saying "this manual is not what it does not
> claim to be" is particularly useful.
>
That's valid, but how else do we get people to read the correct document
for their skill l
On 2024-11-16 20:35, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 16:35:05 -0600, Mike Peters wrote:
Description:
Process substitution does not generate properly when pulling from another file
descriptor, although it works when pulling from a file directly. In the below sample shell
s
On 2024-11-16 22:56, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024, at 9:35 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 16:35:05 -0600, Mike Peters wrote:
Description:
Process substitution does not generate properly when pulling from another file
descriptor, although it works wh
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:16:29 -0600, Mike Peters wrote:
> On 2024-11-16 20:35, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 16:35:05 -0600, Mike Peters wrote:
> > > > exec 3 > > > cat <&3
> > > foobar
> >
> > OK. This part is straightforward. Note that you used
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024, at 1:16 PM, Mike Peters wrote:
> On 2024-11-16 22:56, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>> Be aware that <(> Emanuele brought it up [2]; it will not work in future releases.
>
> I don't know what documentation it was missing from, but this usage is
> consistent and logically valid wi
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 01:49, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 11/10/24 7:14 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
>
> > Perhaps what's really needed is to make sure that "ordinary" commands
> bound
> > using bash -x are completely broken (so people won't try to use them),
> > rather than almost working.
>
> `Ordinar
