Bug#501566: [MAN] Clarify two redirection mechanisms
Stephane CHAZELAS stephane.chaze...@gmail.com wrote: Let's make it: [n1]n2Copy file descriptor n2 as stdout (or fd n1) [n1]n2Copy file descriptor n2 as stdin (or fd n1) That's more or less the POSIX wording. It may not be as descriptive as other ones, but I can't imagine anyone complaining about the correctness or accuracy of it. Yes this sounds good to me. Someone please create a patch for it. BTW, one of you guys dropped me from the CC list again. Please don't do that. Thanks, -- Email: Herbert Xu herb...@gondor.apana.org.au Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#501566: [MAN] Clarify two redirection mechanisms
2014-12-08 22:22:03 +0100, Stéphane Aulery: Le lundi 08 décembre 2014 à 08:37:38, Stephane CHAZELAS a écrit : 2014-12-08 19:50:05 +0100, Stéphane Aulery: [n1]n2Redirect standard output (or fd n1) to the same open file description as on fd n2. [n1]n2Copy fd n2 as stdout (or fd n1) [...] I wonder more and more if Herbert is willing to accept this tiny patch or another. I would not be wasting his time if he does not want or can not take care of that. This is free software, there is no obligation. [...] What matters here is the mistake fixed in the manual. np has been around since the end of the 70s. It's unlikely anyone will learn anything about it from the dash man page. Let's make it: [n1]n2Copy file descriptor n2 as stdout (or fd n1) [n1]n2Copy file descriptor n2 as stdin (or fd n1) That's more or less the POSIX wording. It may not be as descriptive as other ones, but I can't imagine anyone complaining about the correctness or accuracy of it. -- Stephane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#501566: [MAN] Clarify two redirection mechanisms
Hello, Stéphane Chazelas said: Herbert Xu said: Resource is rather unwieldy, how about simply file? file could be misleading [...] IMO, resource is vague enough so as not to give the wrong idea and I like that wording because it conveys the intended mechanism clearly (redirect to same thing as). But I agree it's not ideal. It is true that resource is dissonant as file is too restrictive. The term file descriptor is used above. Why not use it again? Regards, -- Stéphane Aulery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#501566: [MAN] Clarify two redirection mechanisms
2014-12-08 19:50:05 +0100, Stéphane Aulery: [n1]n2Redirect standard output (or fd n1) to the same open file description as on fd n2. [n1]n2Copy fd n2 as stdout (or fd n1) [n1]n2Redirect standard output (or fd n1) to the same resource as currently open on fd n2. Resource is rather unwieldy, how about simply file? file could be misleading [...] IMO, resource is vague enough so as not to give the wrong idea and I like that wording because it conveys the intended mechanism clearly (redirect to same thing as). But I agree it's not ideal. It is true that resource is dissonant as file is too restrictive. The term file descriptor is used above. Why not use it again? [...] If you say redirect fd n1 to fd n2, you confuse people (and I've seen a lot of people being confused in such a way) as they start thinking the fds become somehow linked (for instance that in 21 file, stderr goes to stdout and then both to file which is not the case). When you start thinking of as /address/ of (yet another improper wording) or resource currently open on, that clears that confusion. If you don't like the resource wording, you can always got for the copy one above or the POSIX wording: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_07_05 I've seen resource used in the past, I've used it myself a few times in usenet articles: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.unix.shell/48beJpLdjNE/jUak98HUekUJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.unix.questions/EQL477tzYKk/J9ysMfqc5YIJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.unix.aix/WcWsocnEHS0/hgSDWt19SaYJ (see the aforementioned confusion in some of the messages that those were replying to). -- Stephane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#501566: [MAN] Clarify two redirection mechanisms
Le lundi 08 décembre 2014 à 08:37:38, Stephane CHAZELAS a écrit : 2014-12-08 19:50:05 +0100, Stéphane Aulery: [n1]n2Redirect standard output (or fd n1) to the same open file description as on fd n2. [n1]n2Copy fd n2 as stdout (or fd n1) [n1]n2Redirect standard output (or fd n1) to the same resource as currently open on fd n2. Resource is rather unwieldy, how about simply file? file could be misleading [...] IMO, resource is vague enough so as not to give the wrong idea and I like that wording because it conveys the intended mechanism clearly (redirect to same thing as). But I agree it's not ideal. It is true that resource is dissonant as file is too restrictive. The term file descriptor is used above. Why not use it again? [...] If you say redirect fd n1 to fd n2, you confuse people (and I've seen a lot of people being confused in such a way) as they start thinking the fds become somehow linked (for instance that in 21 file, stderr goes to stdout and then both to file which is not the case). When you start thinking of as /address/ of (yet another improper wording) or resource currently open on, that clears that confusion. If you don't like the resource wording, you can always got for the copy one above or the POSIX wording: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_07_05 As for me, I'm not bothered by the word resource. It's ok for me as copy. But Herbert does not agree, so I can not force him:-)). I wonder more and more if Herbert is willing to accept this tiny patch or another. I would not be wasting his time if he does not want or can not take care of that. This is free software, there is no obligation. This is my last attempt, if there is no consensus I close the bug regarding Debian. Have a nice day. -- Stéphane Aulery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#501566: [MAN] Clarify two redirection mechanisms
Hi Jonathan, Le lundi 08 décembre 2014 à 01:56:15, Jonathan Nieder a écrit : Stéphane Aulery wrote: As for me, I'm not bothered by the word resource. It's ok for me as copy. But Herbert does not agree, so I can not force him:-)). [...] This is my last attempt, if there is no consensus I close the bug regarding Debian. Please don't. I can handle the bug if no one is able to come up with a good wording. And how will you do if no one has a good wording? I am willing to wait. Regards, -- Stéphane Aulery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#501566: [MAN] Clarify two redirection mechanisms
Hi Stéphane, Stéphane Aulery wrote: As for me, I'm not bothered by the word resource. It's ok for me as copy. But Herbert does not agree, so I can not force him:-)). [...] This is my last attempt, if there is no consensus I close the bug regarding Debian. Please don't. I can handle the bug if no one is able to come up with a good wording. Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
