Zsh Mailing List Archive Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics

X-seq: zsh-users 1525
From: Andrew Main <zefram@xxxxxxxxx>
To: schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bart Schaefer)
Subject: Re: zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:34:11 +0100 (BST)
Cc: zefram@xxxxxxxxx, zsh-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <980507022638.ZM16894@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Bart Schaefer" at May 7, 98 02:26:38 am

Bart Schaefer wrote:
>I'd take a poll first (and see if you can get PF to answer).  One aspect
>of the current zsh behavior is that you can leave the same coproc running
>all day and feed different stuff through it from time to time, which IIRC
>was actually discussed in a long-ago introduction-to-zsh document that
>Paul once distributed.

That is an issue.  Maybe there's reason enough for an option to flip
the behaviour of >&p.  (We could add >&p- and >&p+ which aren't affected
by options.)

>With respect to that, I suggest simply making <&999 >&999 legal syntax
>when a particular option is set.

That's already legal.  It's 999>&1 that's the problem.  I think an option
is a good solution.

-zefram

References:
- Re: zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics
  - From: Bart Schaefer

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author