On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Eric Blake wrote:
> > You might want to quote <<'EOSH', but that's not the cause of your
> > problem. Here's a funny thing:
> >
> > #!/bin/bash
> > exec 5<&0 /bin/bash <<'EOSH'
> > echo "First exec: Done."
> > cat
> > exec 0<&5
> > echo "Second exec: Done."
> > exit 0
> > EOSH
> >
> > works for me. Don't ask me why, though. Perhaps Eric will chime in.
>
> Define "works for me".
>
> $ ./exectest.sh
> First exec: Done.
> exec 0<&5
> echo "Second exec: Done."
> exit 0
D'oh! I was thrown off by the fact that I used "bash -xv" in my test
script. Sorry for the noise.
> Here, the cat uses fd 0 (which is still set to the pipe from the
> here-doc), and consumes it by echoing the remainder of
> the here-doc to stdout, so that when /bin/bash goes
> to read the next line, fd 0 is at EOF, and you never execute
> the "exec 0<&5" line in the shell. Thus, the process never
> tries to duplicate fd 5 back to fd 0, and your example no longer
> hangs waiting for input from the terminal. But it doesn't do what
> was originally intended (that is, allow /bin/bash to execute
> the remainder of the here-doc).
Right. Your redirection order explanation is correct.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
