Re: POSIX and the "&>" operator

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bart Schaefer wrote:
> The following is part of an exchange on the austin-group mailing list.
> The assertion is that "foo&>bar" has a well-defined semantics in POSIX
> sh and therefore the bash extension (which zsh adopted) to make "&>" a
> synonym for "2>&1 >" is in violation of POSIX compliance.

I think both got it from csh, which is why nobody thought about POSIX
compatibility---apart from the fact that the combination of (i) putting
a new command on the same line as backgrounded expression (ii) not
putting a space after the "&" (iii) starting the following command with
a redirection, while perfectly valid traditional sh syntax, is a very
strange way to write.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web page now at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.w.stephenson/