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 Tags: tc1-2024 Type: Enhancement Request Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: Interpretation Required 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: Proposed Final Accepted Text: https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913#c7277 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2025-03-12 03:33 UTC Last Modified: 2025-10-23 16:46 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: clarify/define the meaning of n<&n and m>&m redirections ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0007291) hvd (reporter) - 2025-10-23 16:46 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913#c7291 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Currently, in multiple shells, even the non-close-on-exec shells, 8<&8 is not a no op if fd 8 was closed: it results in an error exactly as 0<&8 would. By my reading of the proposed wording, in shells that do not set close-on-exec, this would be required to be silently accepted, and in shells that do set close-on-exec, this would effectively be required to result in an error (an error is the natural consequence of the required behaviour). This inconsistency does not look useful to me. This should be accepted in all shells, an error in all shells, or unspecified whether it results in an error, not tied to close-on-exec. 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 2025-03-13 16:12 geoffclare Note Added: 0007115 2025-03-13 17:48 calestyo Note Added: 0007117 2025-03-13 20:20 larryv Note Added: 0007119 2025-03-13 20:43 larryv Note Added: 0007120 2025-03-14 09:44 geoffclare Note Edited: 0007115 2025-03-18 12:30 geoffclare Note Added: 0007125 2025-03-20 14:49 geoffclare Note Edited: 0007115 2025-09-25 11:34 geoffclare Note Added: 0007277 2025-10-23 15:34 geoffclare Note Edited: 0007277 2025-10-23 15:36 geoffclare Note Edited: 0007277 2025-10-23 15:37 geoffclare Status New => Interpretation Required 2025-10-23 15:37 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2025-10-23 15:37 geoffclare Interp Status => Pending 2025-10-23 15:37 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1913#c7277 2025-10-23 15:38 geoffclare Tag Attached: tc1-2024 2025-10-23 15:52 ajosey Interp Status Pending => Proposed 2025-10-23 15:52 ajosey Note Added: 0007289 2025-10-23 16:46 hvd Note Added: 0007291 ======================================================================
