* Re: zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics [not found] <980506090047.ZM13585@candle.brasslantern.com> @ 1998-05-06 16:52 ` Andrew Main 1998-05-06 20:26 ` Bart Schaefer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Andrew Main @ 1998-05-06 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bart Schaefer; +Cc: zsh-workers Bart Schaefer wrote: >(Is anybody on zsh-workers reading this? Zefram, Zoltan, Peter?) Yes. My current plan is to ignore the debate, and go for the full-on zsh solution: by default, >&p and <&p act as if p were a normal file descriptor referring to the appropriate pipe, as zsh does now; at the drop of an option, we do whatever ksh does, if it's different. Can someone who knows one end of a pipe from the other please experiment with ksh and definitively state what it does? I'd like information on pdksh, ksh88 and ksh93. If only one of them has behaviour inconsistent with zsh then it's probably a bug and therefore not worth emulating. -zefram ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics 1998-05-06 16:52 ` zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics Andrew Main @ 1998-05-06 20:26 ` Bart Schaefer 1998-05-07 8:27 ` Andrew Main 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 1998-05-06 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Main, zsh-workers On May 6, 5:52pm, Andrew Main wrote: > Subject: Re: zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics > Bart Schaefer wrote: > >(Is anybody on zsh-workers reading this? Zefram, Zoltan, Peter?) > > Yes. My current plan is to ignore the debate, and go for the full-on > zsh solution: by default, >&p and <&p act as if p were a normal file > descriptor referring to the appropriate pipe, as zsh does now; at the > drop of an option, we do whatever ksh does, if it's different. That doesn't address the issue of how to close the coproc input in the basic zsh model. Is "coproc exit" really going to be the approved way? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics 1998-05-06 20:26 ` Bart Schaefer @ 1998-05-07 8:27 ` Andrew Main 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Andrew Main @ 1998-05-07 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bart Schaefer; +Cc: zefram, zsh-workers Bart Schaefer wrote: >That doesn't address the issue of how to close the coproc input in the >basic zsh model. Is "coproc exit" really going to be the approved way? That's a separate issue. I think the best solution is tied into access to file descriptors above 9: make the coprocess fds be 10 and 11, and then you can do (ignoring for the moment the single digit restriction of the syntax) "10>&- 11>&-" to close them. ">&p" would be shorthand for ">&10", and so on. What syntax to use for these fds is another issue altogether. We're seriously short of special characters, and I don't see a good syntax that's compatible with POSIX. (The best I see is to put ">;" preceding the multi-digit version of the normal syntax.) OTOH, it would probably be reasonably easy to simply allow multi-digit fd numbers with an option, enabled by default only in zsh mode. -zefram ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-05-07 8:35 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <980506090047.ZM13585@candle.brasslantern.com> 1998-05-06 16:52 ` zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics Andrew Main 1998-05-06 20:26 ` Bart Schaefer 1998-05-07 8:27 ` Andrew Main
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/ This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).