[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: >&2 vs. 1>&2
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: >&2 vs. 1>&2 |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:03:09 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 |
On 03/20/13 14:22, Bruno Haible wrote:
> I'm not aware of any portability problem here.
Nor I.
> It's more a question of style. I use 1>&2 and 2>&1 quite frequently, and would
> find it odd to omit the '1' in one case but not in the other case.
My style (and it is just style) is the reverse.
I find the general I>&J syntax to be confusing.
I use ">&2" more often, and the syntax in
"printf ... >&2" works better to remind me that
it's like "printf ... >/dev/stderr" but is more portable.
I use "2>&1" less often, and the fact that "2>&1" is a bit more
verbose helps to remind me that it's the less common case;
this helps overcome some of my confusion.