On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 07:43:40PM -0400, Mouse wrote: >[...] > > > What I need to know is whether people think adding this to /bin/sh > > (most probably including SMALL shells, as this is the kind of thing > > useful to use in places like installation scripts) is worth the cost. > > Personally, I would say "no", but just because I don't think something > is worth doing doesn't mean it isn't. This is not something I've ever > wished for; indeed, I can't recall ever having even seen such code. > (What I would prefer to see is more flexible piping.)
There is one usage of this feature that I see now: shell library, i.e. chunks of code to 'dot' in a main script. If these chunks open fds, it would be a nightmare to imagine how to ensure that the fd numbers don't conflict. With "named fds", one can have namespace protection and can refer to some_chunk_var without knowing the value (dynamically allocated) and a main script can then incorporate safely various chunks in various order. And this can be useful at installation time (switching to different chunks from the context). -- Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com> http://www.kergis.com/ http://kertex.kergis.com/ http://www.sbfa.fr/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C