On 31 May 2013 20:50, "Dan Nelson" wrote:
>
> In the last episode (May 31), Reid Linnemann said:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
> > > If you're arguing we have to change sh's behavior to be more
compliant,
> > > jilles already quoted XCU 2.12 (our shell is well within its
In the last episode (May 31), Reid Linnemann said:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Teske, Devin
> wrote:
> > If you're arguing we have to change sh's behavior to be more compliant,
> > jilles already quoted XCU 2.12 (our shell is well within its right to
> > run any/all lvalue/rvalue operands o
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
>
> If you're arguing we have to change sh's behavior to be more compliant,
> jilles already quoted XCU 2.12 (our shell is well within its right to run
> any/all lvalue/rvalue operands of a pipe in a sub-shell without
> contradicting the guideli
On May 31, 2013, at 10:59 AM,
wrote:
> Redirections > and >> don't put it in a subshell.
Correct. (note: I made no such insinuation; But thanks for clarifying for
others that perhaps were not aware).
> Only pipe |, which means only STDIN affects/triggers this behaviour.
> Does < operator al
Redirections > and >> don't put it in a subshell.
Only pipe |, which means only STDIN affects/triggers this behaviour.
Does < operator also does it, as it is also STDIN?
Anyway, I don't care for executing binaries, but I do care if that is part of
sh's code, as function is.
It messes var scopes.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:48:47AM +0200, Václav Zeman wrote:
> On 27 May 2013 21:58, Reid Linnemann wrote:
> > from SH(1)
> > "Note that unlike some other shells, sh executes each process in a pipe-
> > line with more than one command in a subshell environment and as a
> > child
> > of
On May 28, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Reid Linnemann wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Ryan Stone wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
>> Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
>>
>> I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what
On May 28, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
>
> I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what shell the
> manpage is referring to, but it's not bash (bash d
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
>
I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what shell the
manpage is referring to, but it's not bash (bash does the same thing in a
pipeline). Perhaps it's referri
On 27 May 2013 21:58, Reid Linnemann wrote:
> from SH(1)
>
> "Note that unlike some other shells, sh executes each process in a pipe-
> line with more than one command in a subshell environment and as a
> child
> of the sh process."
>
> I'm taking this to mean that redirecting to sh_f has
from SH(1)
"Note that unlike some other shells, sh executes each process in a pipe-
line with more than one command in a subshell environment and as a
child
of the sh process."
I'm taking this to mean that redirecting to sh_f has sh_f execute in a
subshell in which global_scope_var chan
9.1-RELEASE-p3
---
#!/bin/sh
sh_f ()
{
global_scope_var=7463457
}
yes | sh_f
echo "$global_scope_var"
echo '
Now without /usr/bin/yes (maybe it is STDIN issue, instead) ?!?
'
sh_f
echo "$global_scope_var"
---
Domagoj Smolčić
12 matches
Mail list logo
