On 11/8/13, 6:26 PM, John Dawson wrote:
> The following surprised me. I thought line 4 of the output, and certainly
> line 5 of the output, should have said "0 /dev/fd/63" too. Is this behavior
> a bug?
Bash is pretty aggressive about closing pipe file descriptors (/dev/fd
constructs use pipes) op
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Michael Haubenwallner <
michael.haubenwall...@salomon.at> wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 08:56 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > On 11/8/13 6:26 PM, John Dawson wrote:
> >> The following surprised me. I thought line 4 of the output, and
> certainly
> >> line 5 of the output, shoul
On 11/14/2013 08:56 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 11/8/13 6:26 PM, John Dawson wrote:
>> The following surprised me. I thought line 4 of the output, and certainly
>> line 5 of the output, should have said "0 /dev/fd/63" too. Is this behavior
>> a bug?
>
> I'm still looking at this. I have not had a
On 11/8/13 6:26 PM, John Dawson wrote:
> The following surprised me. I thought line 4 of the output, and certainly
> line 5 of the output, should have said "0 /dev/fd/63" too. Is this behavior
> a bug?
I'm still looking at this. I have not had a great deal of time to
investigate.
Chet
--
``The
The following surprised me. I thought line 4 of the output, and certainly
line 5 of the output, should have said "0 /dev/fd/63" too. Is this behavior
a bug?
$ cat bug1.bash
#!/bin/bash
count_lines()
{
wc -l $1
wc -l $1
wc -l $1
true | wc -l $1
wc -l $1
}
count_lines <(date)
$
The following surprised me. I thought line 4 of the output, and certainly
line 5 of the output, should have said "0 /dev/fd/63" too. Is this behavior
a bug?
$ cat bug1.bash
#!/bin/bash
count_lines()
{
wc -l $1
wc -l $1
wc -l $1
true | wc -l $1
wc -l $1
}
count_lines <(date)
$
