Re: piping surprise

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 2024-04-05 13:32, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:49 AM Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>> I believe Bart had a solution to that.
> I can't think what you're referring to, but in the realm of the baroque ...
It was a few years ago.  I'd plum forgotten to the point where I was 
mystified when the above happened because I've not thought about it 
since.  But I do remember that Roman was running all sorts of 
interesting speed tests.  I wish we could search the archives, I'd go 
looking for it.  I do remember making a typical comment to the effect 
that there's nothing intuitive about this subshell business but it turns 
out that there are deep reasons for it just the same.

func  | ...

... I sorta expect func to do whatever it does, even if the *output* is 
piped into a subshell.  In the above, I'm expecting my variable to be 
modified, pipe or  no pipe since the intention of the pipe would seem to 
be to modify the output and -- I might have thought -- that's all.


> typeset -gi Pnum
> alias -g '|'='> ${TMPPREFIX}pipe$$.$((++Pnum)) ; < ${TMPPREFIX}pipe$$.$((Pnum))'
Not for thumb-suckers like myself!