From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 11:44:43 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <564b10c396c5747d9cc94ad0fcbb641b@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <ce3cff6d53d928b9d6387e952542b62c@rei2.9hal>
References: <ce3cff6d53d928b9d6387e952542b62c@rei2.9hal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] rc behavior with rfork
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8fa4708a-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed May 16 11:40:13 EDT 2012, cinap_lenrek@gmx.de wrote:
> hm, wait... that cant be right:
>
> term% @{echo 1; echo 2 >[1=2]} >[2]/dev/null
> 1
> term% @{echo 1; echo 2 >[1=2]} >/dev/null
> 2
>
> so this is what i would expect. why is that
> broken with rfork e? theres some bug lurking.

the "bug" is in devenv.  it re-evaluates the environment
group at the time of read/write.  due to the behavior
of rc, this is not going to be too much of a problem,
but on the face of it (that is, without thinking too hard),
it seems incorrect, or at least a minor violation of the
principle of least surprise.

- erik