[Top][All Lists]

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

Making "cmd< <(...)" useful (reliable)

From: Linda Walsh
Subject: Making "cmd< <(...)" useful (reliable)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 16:47:31 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird

Right now, I just noticed myself steering away from the "cmd< <(xx)"
construct, in a normal runtime script where it would likely be safe, but
in the back of my mind, a little voice says "but you don't know how this
might be re-used", and if it gets re-used w/o proc mounted or present,
then this will mysteriously break".
Grrr..I get frustrated at not being able to use features that
could greatly simplify code because they don't work "reliably"
(i.e. I don't always know where a piece of code I write will end up
being called from, since if I put it in a library, and it's called
from another routine,  which might be called from another...(etc...)

Is it possible to make that feature work, by default, w/o the unreliable
part?  I.e. in < <(xxx).  Can't the part in (xxx) be forked into a child
that has it's output fed into the parent?

Right now we have (case 1):
xxx|yyy|zzz for running "xxx" and "yyy" in children with "zzz" in a parent.

So is there a reason for not doing similar for < <()?

I.e. (case 2):
zzz < <(yyy< <(xxx)) would very similar to the above.  xxx runs
as a child feeding its output into 'yyy' and 'yyy' would run as a child of
zzz feeding its output into the input of 'zzz'.
If it can be done w/ in the first case, _reliably_ (works w/o special
file systems mounted), why not the 2nd case?

Could someone point out what I am missing or why they think it wouldn't


reply via email to

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