On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 01:49 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:29:28PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 21:18 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > I'd agree on the principle to not leave a nul port for stdin/stdout, > > > any other opinion on this? > > > > I disagree. Translators don't have such ports, and making them null > > encourages programs to write on them, possibly expecting that the output > > will go somewhere. > > Well, I'm not sure I entirely understand what is being discussed here; > so pardon me if this is a stupid notion: Is there some fundamental > reason why (active) translators couldn't actually get real stdin/stdout > from the settrans?...
Active translators certainly do get real stdin/stdout ports when created with settrans -a. It's when they are started up from passive translators that there is a difficulty. What would you like those stdin/stdout to be connected to? Thomas
