Re: warning about closing an already closed file descriptor

[Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz>]

# p.stephenson@samsung.com / 2015-01-19 17:28:50 +0000:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:59:35 +0000
> Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@samsung.com> wrote:
> > The problem that change fixed wasn't really intended to have a visible
> > effect, apart from closing f.d.s the shell didn't know about.  If it's
> > more useful without the message than with it, it can be removed.
> >...
> > We can special case the {varid}<&- syntax --- that might be useful since
> > it implies the user was previously in direct control of the f.d. so is
> > ikely to be interested in an error if closing it failed.
> 
> This easy patch does that.  Is anyone other than Kamil interested enough
> to comment?

> diff --git a/Test/A04redirect.ztst b/Test/A04redirect.ztst
> index a39ce46..cb67788 100644
> --- a/Test/A04redirect.ztst
> +++ b/Test/A04redirect.ztst
> @@ -152,11 +152,13 @@
>  >hello
>  >goodbye
>  
> -  ({ exec 3<&- } 2>/dev/null
> -  exec 3<&-
> -  read foo <&-)
> +  (exec {varid}<&0
> +  exec {varid}<&-
> +  print About to close a second time >&2
> +  read {varid}<&-)

sorry if i'm talking out of my ass, but does this mean that
the non-{varid} syntax is now without a test?

>  1:'<&-' redirection
> -*?\(eval\):*: failed to close file descriptor 3:*
> +?About to close a second time
> +*?\(eval\):*: failed to close file descriptor *
>  
>    print foo >&-
>  0:'>&-' redirection

-- 
roman