[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: coprocess suggestions

From: Chet Ramey
Subject: Re: coprocess suggestions
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:30:48 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20081209)

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Chet Ramey <address@hidden> writes:
>> Pierre Gaston wrote:
>>> I have a couple of suggestions about coprocesses.
>>> If I understood correctly how coproc works, I think that
>>> instead of :
>>> coproc [NAME] command [redirections]
>>> the documentation would be a little clearer with something like:
>>> coproc simple-command [redirections]
>>> coproc NAME compound-command [redirections]
>> I agree.  I will make it clearer that NAME cannot be used if the
>> coproc command is a simple command, to avoid confusion with the
>> first word of the command.
> Even then the grammar is ambiguous.  What looks like a NAME followed by
> a compound-command can also be interpreted as a simple-command where
> NAME is the first word of it.

The grammar will not interpret it that way.  The token following the
NAME after the `coproc' will be parsed as a reserved word if it meets
the criteria for a reserved word -- that is, this is a place where
reserved words will be recognized.


``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer

Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    address@hidden    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]