On Mar 19, 2015, at 7:34 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
>
> I've noticed that quite a lot of "useless use of cat" comes from folks
> reaching conceptually for
>
>
> but having issues with the idea of a command starting with a redirection and
> rejecting it instead of moving the redirection.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Brad Beyenhof
wrote:
> For that matter, is there a significant difference between
> and
> $COMMAND $ARGS ?
>
> I honestly didn't know about & hadn't tried the former until just now.
>
Only if there are interacting redirections (e.g. "2>&1 >foo" and ">foo
2>&1"
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Joe Morris wrote:
> hadn't thought of that before -- never liked redirection as the first
> character of a command.
>
I've noticed that quite a lot of "useless use of cat" comes from folks
reaching conceptually for
http://sinenomine.net
Not so long ago, allber...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Paul Graydon
> wrote:
>
> > I've always done:
> > echo > /path/to/filename
> >
>
> That one's actually a bit unsafe because it writes a newline to the file.
> And csh behaves differently from sh. (And then we get into
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
>
> For the past 25 years or so, I've always used:
>
> cat /dev/null >/path/to/filename
>
> to empty a file. Somebody just showed me:
>
> >/path/to/filename
>
> Is this "new"? I've never seen it before (and I've worked with quite a few
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Paul Graydon
wrote:
> I've always done:
> echo > /path/to/filename
>
That one's actually a bit unsafe because it writes a newline to the file.
And csh behaves differently from sh. (And then we get into, if you want to
suppress the newline, how different echo impl
Huh.. didn't know either of those.
I've always done:
echo > /path/to/filename
Paul
On 3/13/2015 11:00 AM, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
I tend to use:
: > filename
Since ":" is no-op.
On 03/13/15 10:54, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
For the past 25 years or so, I've always used:
cat /dev/nu
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
> to empty a file. Somebody just showed me:
>
> >/path/to/filename
>
>
> Is this "new"? I've never seen it before (and I've worked with quite a few
> sysadmins and devs)... Is this bash vs other shells? I feel weird not
> knowing
> this.
>
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
For the past 25 years or so, I've always used:
cat /dev/null >/path/to/filename
to empty a file. Somebody just showed me:
>/path/to/filename
Is this "new"? I've never seen it before (and I've worked with quite a few
sysadmins and devs)... Is
I tend to use:
: > filename
Since ":" is no-op.
On 03/13/15 10:54, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
For the past 25 years or so, I've always used:
cat /dev/null >/path/to/filename
to empty a file. Somebody just showed me:
>/path/to/filename
Is this "new"? I've never seen it before (and I'
For the past 25 years or so, I've always used:
cat /dev/null >/path/to/filename
to empty a file. Somebody just showed me:
>/path/to/filename
Is this "new"? I've never seen it before (and I've worked with quite a few
sysadmins and devs)... Is this bash vs other shells? I feel weird no
11 matches
Mail list logo
