Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote:
> When the { } are there there's no question the redirect on the compound
> command itself happens first, and then the contents of that are executed,
> so then it all works.
>
> Personally I think the "may be reversed" (not even "shall be") is a mistake,
> and just pandering to bugs in old shells, but this is the world we live in
> and applications simply cannot rely, either way, on the evaluation order
> when there is no command name (or on special built-ins.)
This is not a bug, but a design decision.
In this area, there is however a bug in the historic Bourne Shell as e.g. seen
on Solaris:
Redirection with complex commands did not work and
if ... then .... else ... > /dev/null did only redirect the else part
of the command.
A shell that does not fix this, will not capture stderr in $ls_err at all.
The background is that IO redirection previously was bound to a TFORK node in
the syntax tree created by the parser. Newer shells added a TSETIO node...
Since nothing was wrong with the decision to do IO redirection in the forked
child that soon will call the command, "may be reversed" cannot be seen as a
mistake.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
