On 9/18/14, 9:26 AM, arn...@skeeve.com wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>
>> Yes, on this one. There are others; recall the `discussion' about
>> whether bash should choose between /dev/fd or FIFOs for process
>> substitution at runtime.
>
> That's a tougher one. It's a question of how far back do yo
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 07:26:33AM -0600, arn...@skeeve.com wrote:
> I'm finding that modern systems have pretty much the union of things
> that I need, and also that the older ones that don't simply aren't
> in use anymore. E.g., do you still need to support SunOS 4.1.x? Ultrix?
> OSF/1? Irix?
W
Chet Ramey wrote:
> Yes, on this one. There are others; recall the `discussion' about
> whether bash should choose between /dev/fd or FIFOs for process
> substitution at runtime.
That's a tougher one. It's a question of how far back do you wish
to continue supporting systems?
I'm finding that
On 9/18/14, 4:29 AM, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>> Sure. It's a choice between internal and external consistency. If I
>> emulated /dev/std* (and maybe /dev/fd/*) internally in bash, bash would
>> behave the same everywhere, but, as Andreas said, I'd get questions
>> about why `foo -o /dev/stdout' an
In article ,
Chet Ramey wrote:
>On 9/17/14, 3:07 AM, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>
>>> I've considered emulating it everywhere, regardless of what the OS
>>> provides, but I'd get just as many complaints if I did that.
>>>
>>> Chet
>>
>> This is what gawk does. I haven't had any complaints about this,
On 9/17/14, 3:07 AM, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>> I've considered emulating it everywhere, regardless of what the OS
>> provides, but I'd get just as many complaints if I did that.
>>
>> Chet
>
> This is what gawk does. I haven't had any complaints about this,
> and once you do it that way you can cl
Am Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:44:05 -0500
schrieb Dennis Williamson :
> Does your program support using a hyphen to represent stdout (some
> do)?
>
> program -i "$i" -o -
>
It indeed does! Thanks for the tip.
Ralf
arn...@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) writes:
> In article ,
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>>On 9/16/14, 3:00 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>>
>>> That is one of the reasons I don't like the /dev/std{err,in,out}
>>> things. They are not portable. They do different things on different
>>> systems. I avoid them.
>>
In article ,
Chet Ramey wrote:
>On 9/16/14, 3:00 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
>> That is one of the reasons I don't like the /dev/std{err,in,out}
>> things. They are not portable. They do different things on different
>> systems. I avoid them.
>
>I've considered emulating it everywhere, regardless
Chet Ramey wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > That is one of the reasons I don't like the /dev/std{err,in,out}
> > things. They are not portable. They do different things on different
> > systems. I avoid them.
>
> I've considered emulating it everywhere, regardless of what the OS
> provides, but I
On 9/16/14, 3:00 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> That is one of the reasons I don't like the /dev/std{err,in,out}
> things. They are not portable. They do different things on different
> systems. I avoid them.
I've considered emulating it everywhere, regardless of what the OS
provides, but I'd get jus
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> Am Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:53:48 -0600
> schrieb Bob Proulx :
>
>
> > Dennis Williamson wrote:
> > > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > > { for i in file[12] ; do cat "$i" ; done ;} > both
>
> > > There's no need for the curly braces and the last semicolon
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> It's important to note that the following two cases are *not*
> equivalent:
>
>cat "$i" >/dev/stdout
>program -i "$i" -o /dev/stdout
>
> In the first case, the /dev/stdout is part of a redirection. On
> platforms that do not have a native /dev/stdout in the file sy
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 09:03:20AM +0200, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> Actually things are more complicated. I do need the /dev/stdout part. I
> obiously don't have the problem with `cat' but with some other program
> $ for i in file[12] ; do program -i "$i" -o /dev/stdout ; done > outfile
It's important
Ralf Goertz wrote:
> Actually things are more complicated. I do need the /dev/stdout part. I
> obiously don't have the problem with `cat' but with some other program
> that doesn't write to stdout per se and expects a -o parameter for the
> output file. And this program just accepts one input file.
Am Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:53:48 -0600
schrieb Bob Proulx :
> Dennis Williamson wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > { for i in file[12] ; do cat "$i" ; done ;} > both
> > There's no need for the curly braces and the last semicolon.
>
> Of course you are totally right. I was distracted by the subs
On 9/15/14, 8:14 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On HP-UX, /dev/stdout is NOT an actual file in the file system, so it
> is implemented by duplicating FD 1 within Bash.
>
> arc3:~$ uname -a
> Linux arc3 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.60-1+deb7u1 i686 GNU/Linux
> arc3:~$ for i in file[12]; do cat "$
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 06:12:13PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> (for i in file[12] ; do cat "$i" > /dev/stdout ; done) > both
>
> > $ cat both
> > second
>
> Because the >/dev/stdout truncates the output. It writes the first.
> Then the second one truncates the file and then writes the second.
Dennis Williamson wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > And the subshell isn't needed either. Use a list.
> >
> > { for i in file[12] ; do cat "$i" ; done ;} > both
>
> There's no need for the curly braces and the last semicolon.
Of course you are totally right. I was distracted by the subshell as
a
On Sep 12, 2014 7:12 PM, "Bob Proulx" wrote:
>
> Ralf Goertz wrote:
>
> Since you have used an invalid address I assume you are reading the
> mailing list via a web archive or other means and did not CC you.
>
> > Why do I need cat (the second on) here?
>
> You don't.
>
> > $ echo first >file1
>
Ralf Goertz wrote:
Since you have used an invalid address I assume you are reading the
mailing list via a web archive or other means and did not CC you.
> Why do I need cat (the second on) here?
You don't.
> $ echo first >file1
> $ echo second >file2
> $ (for i in file[12] ; do cat "$i" > /dev
On Sep 12, 2014 6:42 PM, "Ralf Goertz" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Why do I need cat (the second on) here?
>
> $ echo first >file1
> $ echo second >file2
> $ (for i in file[12] ; do cat "$i" > /dev/stdout ; done) | cat > both
>
> $ cat both
> first
> second
>
>
>
> If I omit the "| cat" after the loop
22 matches
Mail list logo
