>So anyone know when process substitution was introduced into bash?
I see it supported at least as far back a 1.14.6 and I suspect it's
been around much longer.
*
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 11:07, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
[snip]
> > Process substitution is supported on systems that support
> > named pipes (FIFOs) or the /dev/fd method of naming
> > open files. It takes the form of <(list) or >(list).
> > The process list is run with its input or output connec
> pll@tater:~$ ls -l <( echo )
> lr-x-- 1 pll pll 64 Jul 31 10:02 /dev/fd/63 -> pipe:[5071]
> pll@tater:~$ echo <( ls -l )
> /dev/fd/63
>
>Definitely not what I expected at all. Especially considering
>
> pll@tater:~$ ls -l /dev/fd/
> total 0
> lrwx-- 1 pll pll 64 Jul 31 10:14 0 -> /dev
In a message dated: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:07:18 EDT
Michael O'Donnell said:
>If you haven't messed with this 'Process Substitution' stuff
>before, examples like the following could (as my favorite oracle
>might say) "bake your noodle":
>
> ls -l <( echo )
> echo <( ls -l )
>
>...my noodle is c
2.05a.0(1)-release
] => { command1 ; command2 ; command3 } > >( tee -a $someLogFile ) 2>&1
]
] This doesn't look legal. Period.
Heh. Like I said, it'll bake your noodle - that's
what got me to dig further. It is indeed a legal
construct, part of something the BASH docs call
'Process Substi
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
=>
=>Today I ran across this usage of the 'Process Substitution' trickery
=>supported by BASH:
=>
=>
=> { command1 ; command2 ; command3 } > >( tee -a $someLogFile ) 2>&1
This doesn't look legal. Period.
=>
=>
=>...and wondered how it differs from (or
Today I ran across this usage of the 'Process Substitution' trickery
supported by BASH:
{ command1 ; command2 ; command3 } > >( tee -a $someLogFile ) 2>&1
...and wondered how it differs from (or is preferable to) this:
{ command1 ; command2 ; command3 } | ( tee -a $someLogFile ) 2>&1
P
