From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <bc980a3fc4e38583b7ea30cd8602863d@sp.inri.net>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:49:14 +0000
From: sl@9front.org
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5jXis9O5+aGBqk5ndGsoW4eQXoNjwW2Kv6AFZ733okYtg@mail.gmail.com>
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: 8f6c7f2c-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > The confusing part to me is why >[2] or >[3] or >[4]
> > (and so on) captures the stdout of the @{} block.
> >
>
>
> it doesn't: look closely at your commands.
>
> term% @{rfork e; echo hi} >[2]/env/hi; echo test; cat /env/hi
> hi
> test
>
> the echo hi is going to standard output, which is not captured.
> the >[2]/env/hi is creating an empty env variable in the parent shell scope
> (name space).
> echo test goes to standard output, and cat /env/hi prints the empty env
> variable on standard output.

But then why:

term% @{rfork e; echo hi} >/env/hi; echo test; cat /env/hi
test

Where is the 'echo hi' going?

-sl