Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
>> > I feel this is the wrong way round. `>/dev/null` may sound very intuitive
>> > to you, but this feature is Windows only. Guess three times how intuitive
>> > it sounds to Windows developers to write `>/dev/null` if you want to
>> > suppress output...
>>
>> It would be just as intuitive to write '2>&1' for dup-redirection,
>
> No. You misunderstand. I was mainly concerned with the `/dev/null`. Every
> Windows developer knows what `>file.txt` means, and many know what
> `2>error.txt` means. But `/dev/null` is not Windows, period.
Actually I did know that much.
If I was correct in assuming that "2>&1" is just as foreign as
">/dev/null", then we should be shunning "2>&1" just like we shun
">/dev/null". That was all I meant to say.
Are you saying "2>&1" is just as likely to be known as ">file.txt"
and my assumption of foreignness of "2>&1" was incorrect?
Side note: would ">NUL" look more familiar, I wonder, and
can stand for ">/dev/null" for the target audience?
> ... It is so not
> Windows that Git itself translates it to `NUL` (which you Linux die-hards
> won't have a clue about, I would wager a bet).
Ah, you lost your bet. When can I collect ;-)?
