From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3043 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2000 08:25:09 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 6 Oct 2000 08:25:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 27326 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2000 08:24:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12915 Received: (qmail 27294 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2000 08:24:40 -0000 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:24:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200010060824.KAA14552@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk CC: sbeck@cise.ufl.edu In-reply-to: "Sullivan N. Beck"'s message of Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:11:21 -0400 Subject: Re: Bug report + feature request Sullivan N. Beck wrote: > ... > > Now for the feature request. Since I'd actually like to separate and > pipe STDOUT and STDERR separately to different commands (all of the > above came about from various attempts to get this working) without > resorting to fifos, intermediate files, etc., what I'd _really_ like to > do is to be able to pipe different file descriptors similar to how I can > redirect them to a file. For example, I'd like to replace the following > lines: > > COMMAND > /tmp/stdout 2> /tmp/stderr > cat /tmp/stderr | STDERR_COMMAND > cat /tmp/stdout | STDOUT_COMMAND > > with the single line: > > COMMAND >| STDOUT_COMMAND 2>| STDERR_COMMAND > > If this syntax isn't acceptable, that's fine with me. Any syntax is > fine. I'd just like the functionality. How should it find out if, in your example, STDERR_COMMAND should be used for COMMAND or STDOUT_COMMAND? But anyway... have you seen the >>(cmd) process substitution? You can do: COMMAND >>(STDOUT_COMMAND) 2>>(STDERR_COMMAND) or COMAMND 2>>(STDERR_COMMAND) | STDOUT_COMMAND if you prefer. Note to workers: in the info file, >>(foo) is shown as `> >(foo)'. Urgh. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de