On 31 May 2013 20:50, "Dan Nelson" <dnel...@allantgroup.com> wrote: > > In the last episode (May 31), Reid Linnemann said: > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Teske, Devin <devin.te...@fisglobal.com >wrote: > > > If you're arguing we have to change sh's behavior to be more compliant, > > > jilles already quoted XCU 2.12 (our shell is well within its right to > > > run any/all lvalue/rvalue operands of a pipe in a sub-shell without > > > contradicting the guidelines). > > > > > > But if you're arguing that it has to change to make things better or > > > easier... I don't know about that. Might just make people lulled into > > > using a style that's non-portable. I'd like to keep things the way they > > > are so that if you program for FreeBSD, you're inherently going to > > > program in a fashion that is more portable. > > > > FWIW bash (invoked as sh) on RHEL-based linux systems exhibits the same > > behavior- > > > > sh-3.2$ var=1 > > sh-3.2$ yes|var=2 > > sh-3.2$ echo $var > > 1 > > sh-3.2$ > > > > If my opinion matters at all, I would agree that for the sake of > > portability that behavior be consistent with the majority of sh > > implementations rather than "right" according to arbitrary ruling. > > On the other hand, zsh runs the last component of a pipeline in the parent > shell. The usual model is "do work in pipeline, process results in final > component", and being able to simply set variables there that can be used in > the rest of the script is very elegant.
Right... But it's not portable. Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
