Process substitution bug?

Process substitution bug?

[Vincent Lefevre]

With zsh 3.1.9 under Solaris 2.7:

vin:~> rup >(hilight 1)                                               <17:49:12
     /dev/fd/12: RPC: Unknown host
zsh: exit 1     rup >(hilight 1)

What does this mean?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100%
validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des
Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / PolKA research team at LORIA

Re: Process substitution bug?

[Peter Stephenson]

> With zsh 3.1.9 under Solaris 2.7:
> 
> vin:~> rup >(hilight 1)                                               <17:49:
> 12
>      /dev/fd/12: RPC: Unknown host
> zsh: exit 1     rup >(hilight 1)
> 
> What does this mean?

It means you've forgotten the extra `>'.  >(hilight 1) produces a filename
into which you can write, which will serve as output for the process
`highlight 1'.  You need:

  rup > >(hilight 1)

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070

Re: Process substitution bug?

[Bart Schaefer]

On Oct 31,  5:17pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> 
>  >(hilight 1) produces a filename
> into which you can write, which will serve as output for the process
> `highlight 1'.  You need:                     ^^^^^^
                                              Peter means "input",
                                              of course.

Re: Process substitution bug?

[Vincent Lefevre]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:17:33 +0000, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> It means you've forgotten the extra `>'.  >(hilight 1) produces a filename
> into which you can write, which will serve as output for the process
> `highlight 1'.  You need:
> 
>   rup > >(hilight 1)

OK, is it the same thing as rup >>(hilight 1) ?

(I'm reading mails from 1998, and either things have changed or there
are not very clear.)

The problem is that rup does block-buffering. Neither a pipe nor >(...)
prevents it to do so. Is there a way (at the shell level) so that rup
thinks it's writing to a terminal (thus does line-buffering)?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100%
validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des
Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / PolKA research team at LORIA