[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new redirection operator seems broken
From: |
Chet Ramey |
Subject: |
Re: new redirection operator seems broken |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:42:16 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) |
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 04:13:12PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
>>>>> $ echo >&2 |& wc -l
>
>> I wonder if I should modify it so the implicit 2>&1 happens first, right
>> after the pipe, so any user-specified redirections can override it. That
>> doesn't seem that radical a change. Opinions? (I know what you think,
>> Andreas ;-) ).
>
> I'd say that if you were going to do that, it should've been done before
> the 4.0 release. Changing it now would create a world of confusion.
Actually, since the release is out there, changing it now is best -- it's
been less than three weeks, and there's hardly the momentum that will be
built up later.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
- new redirection operator seems broken, Matt, 2009/03/12
- Re: new redirection operator seems broken, Greg Wooledge, 2009/03/12
- Re: new redirection operator seems broken, Chet Ramey, 2009/03/12
- Re: new redirection operator seems broken, Andreas Schwab, 2009/03/12
- Re: new redirection operator seems broken, Greg Wooledge, 2009/03/12
- Re: new redirection operator seems broken, Andreas Schwab, 2009/03/12
- Re: new redirection operator seems broken, Chet Ramey, 2009/03/12
- Re: new redirection operator seems broken, Greg Wooledge, 2009/03/12
- Re: new redirection operator seems broken,
Chet Ramey <=
- Re: new redirection operator seems broken, Pierre Gaston, 2009/03/13