A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                calestyo
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    1003.1(2024)/Issue8
Issue ID:                   1913
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Enhancement Request
Severity:                   Editorial
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     New
Name:                       Christoph Anton Mitterer 
Organization:                
User Reference:             Shell & Utilities 
Section:                    2.7.5, 2.7.6 
Page Number:                2497 
Line Number:                81097-81118 
Interp Status:              --- 
Final Accepted Text:         
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2025-03-12 03:33 UTC
Last Modified:              2025-03-12 07:00 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    clarify/define the meaning of n<&n and m>&m
redirections
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0007111) larryv (reporter) - 2025-03-12 07:00
 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913#c7111 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Desired Action:<blockquote>It would be even nicer, if the standard mention in a
sentence that this is explicitly meant to be usable for the purpose of
differentiating between utility and redirection errors.</blockquote>The standard
does not exist for your personal benefit, so I do not think it should bless your
highly specific use case. However, it would make sense to briefly mention the
closing-high-FDs behavior as motivation. Something along the lines of Geoff's
wording in the thread would be more than sufficient:<blockquote>So I would
support updating the standard to require that n<&n and n>&n are always a no-op
if fd n is open, except that if the shell normally closes fds > 2, that were
opened with exec, when it executes a non-built-in utility, then applying n<&n or
n>&n to such commands causes fd n to remain open.</blockquote> 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2025-03-12 03:33 calestyo       New Issue                                    
2025-03-12 07:00 larryv         Note Added: 0007111                          
======================================================================


  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • R... Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • ... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
          • ... Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open Group
            • ... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
              • ... Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to