On 20/11/15 17:38, Jim Meyering wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com> wrote: >> On 20/11/15 02:20, Pádraig Brady wrote: >>> I'm coming around to making a change here. >>> >>> Either be quiet about: >>> datagen | tee >(sha1sum --tag) >(md5sum --tag) >&- | sort | gpg >>> --clearsign >>> >>> Or support: >>> datagen | tee --no-stdout >(sha1sum --tag) >(md5sum --tag) | sort | gpg >>> --clearsign >>> >>> I like the idea of supporting this with no new option. >>> I see we have similar EBADF handling in touch and nohup. >>> I'll sleep on it. >> >> The attached supports the >&- usage above. > > Doesn't this suppress a diagnostic that is likely to be valuable to anyone who > accidentally runs an affected tool from a context with closed standard output?
Yes it's not ideal. Also it doesn't map directly to closed stdout. If we were to support it then --no-stdout would probably be best. That would allow symmetric use of processing substitutions also. i.e. tee --no-stdout >(cmd1) >(cmd2) rather than the slightly awkward: tee --no-stdout >(cmd1) | cmd2 cheers, Pádraig
