Re: It is possible to remove the readonly attribute from {BASH, SHELL}OPTS

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Robert Elz wrote: > | Yes, that's exactly the point, to *avoid* dynamic scoping. I want the > | equivalent of Perl's "my", rather than Perl's "local". > > Lexical scoping does not, that is, cannot, work with the shell > language as it is defined, if you want that you

Re: implicit redirection of background within pipeline

On 13 Jan 2016 8:14 p.m., "Andreas Schwab" wrote: > I don't think so. > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_07 > doesn't mention pipelines. That was rather my point. Given that they aren't mentioned, one has to take them as read,

Re: implicit redirection of background within pipeline

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Andreas Schwab wrote: > What does "take them as read" mean? Taking something as read means that the author thought we would understand it without them actually writing it down. Or more prosaically, it means to pretend that they're written there, even though they're not,

Re: implicit redirection of background within pipeline

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 1/13/16 4:08 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Martin Kealey <mar...@kurahaupo.gen.nz> writes: > > > >> What do other shells do? Ksh? Dash? Zsh? > > > > $ ksh -c 'printf "foo1\nfoo2\n" | { (read x; echo

Re: implicit redirection of background within pipeline

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Chet Ramey wrote: > "The standard input for an asynchronous list, before any explicit > redirections are performed, shall be considered to be assigned to a file > that has the same properties as /dev/null." I thought the (only) point of that to avoid a background job

Re: implicit redirection of background within pipeline

Surely a pipe counts as an explicit redirection? And even if it didn't, the inconsistency between the first and subsequent asynchronous elements is confusing. On 12 Jan 2016 02:41, "Chet Ramey" wrote: > On 1/10/16 12:54 PM, Piotr Grzybowski wrote: > > hey, > > > > I am