From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26995 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2009 00:03:23 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from news.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.88) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 7 Feb 2009 00:03:23 -0000 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at sunsite.dk does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: (qmail 53951 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2009 00:03:16 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 7 Feb 2009 00:03:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 6673 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2009 00:03:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 26527 Received: (qmail 6659 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2009 00:03:10 -0000 Received: from bifrost.dotsrc.org (130.225.254.106) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 7 Feb 2009 00:03:10 -0000 Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com [81.103.221.48]) by bifrost.dotsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2503B80271F0 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:03:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20090207000306.FJLM4080.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 00:03:06 +0000 Received: from pws-pc.ntlworld.com ([81.107.42.185]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20090207000305.BAJM22934.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 00:03:05 +0000 Received: from pws-pc (pws-pc [127.0.0.1]) by pws-pc.ntlworld.com (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n1702oSx013214 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 00:02:50 GMT Message-Id: <200902070002.n1702oSx013214@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: POSIX and the "&>" operator In-Reply-To: Message from Bart Schaefer of "Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:50:29 PST." <090206145030.ZM10333@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:02:50 +0000 X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=NLZqzBF-AAAA:8 a=eAnjVFW4Lz3p17pB0tUA:9 a=cO8fJr7VNrO94-Wsl8TK8EFnNPgA:4 a=fUzIcyR-ki4A:10 a=_dQi-Dcv4p4A:10 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8960/Fri Feb 6 13:42:32 2009 on bifrost X-Virus-Status: Clean Bart Schaefer wrote: > The following is part of an exchange on the austin-group mailing list. > The assertion is that "foo&>bar" has a well-defined semantics in POSIX > sh and therefore the bash extension (which zsh adopted) to make "&>" a > synonym for "2>&1 >" is in violation of POSIX compliance. I think both got it from csh, which is why nobody thought about POSIX compatibility---apart from the fact that the combination of (i) putting a new command on the same line as backgrounded expression (ii) not putting a space after the "&" (iii) starting the following command with a redirection, while perfectly valid traditional sh syntax, is a very strange way to write. -- Peter Stephenson Web page now at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.w.stephenson/