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: 2025-03-13 02:41 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: clarify/define the meaning of n<&n and m>&m redirections ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0007112) calestyo (reporter) - 2025-03-13 02:41 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913#c7112 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- <blockquote>The standard does not exist for your personal benefit, so I do not think it should bless your highly specific use case.</blockquote> I don't think I was asking to change it to "my personal benefit" (actually my own use case doesn't need FDs > 2, so I'm already happy with that.). <blockquote> 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> What I at least would want to avoid is that people might ever come across this issue or the corresponding mailing list thread and assume that this is now the way to portably differentiate between utility non-zero exit status and redirection error, when wouldn't be really the case. If you don't think it is, fine for me,... we can still make the change here, but should also mention that this cannot be expected to portably allow the above. If you think it is and if you think that "briefly mentioning the closing-high-FDs behavior as motivation" is enough to also make sure that this is understood by any shell implementer, then I'm all good. My idea to mention the deeper purpose was merely for the case that would be needed. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2025-03-12 03:33 calestyo New Issue 2025-03-12 07:00 larryv Note Added: 0007111 2025-03-13 02:41 calestyo Note Added: 0007112 ======================================================================
