From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25942 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2016 11:57:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 37506 Received: (qmail 3957 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2016 11:57:09 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-AuditID: cbfec7f4-f79026d00000418a-55-568bad38201d Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:47:01 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: PATCH: refactor memstream for "print -v" Message-id: <20160105114701.5b7d8363@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> In-reply-to: <20160105094821.307cca71@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> References: <160104231830.ZM20279@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160105094821.307cca71@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> Organization: Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xK7oWa7vDDObOUbI42PyQyYHRY9XB D0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGe3TJrAV/GCr6Hz1ga2BcT9rFyMnh4SAicTWfUcYIWwxiQv3 1rN1MXJxCAksZZTYtf0zK4Qzg0mi+0gPlHOaUeLjudtgLUICZxglmj6ng9gsAqoS67pvsIHY bAKGElM3zQarEREQlzi79jwLiC0sYCrxbf5xMJtXwF5i8/n9zCA2p4CDxMWt19ghZuZLnNx0 Guw8fgF9iat/PzFBnGcvMfPKGUaIXkGJH5Pvgc1hFtCS2LytiRXClpfYvOYtM8QcdYkbd3ez T2AUnoWkZRaSlllIWhYwMq9iFE0tTS4oTkrPNdQrTswtLs1L10vOz93ECAnnLzsYFx+zOsQo wMGoxMPL8bIrTIg1say4MvcQowQHs5IIr/OS7jAh3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLErivHN3 vQ8REkhPLEnNTk0tSC2CyTJxcEo1MGqeWrq0eRlfe+5aAQ75J+2Pfy+6sfZD7eTz9ifnKk4M ObC2NMc7eq2RQNzEl/1csh/OWPZ6fIvjqPtp41y0Z/JOybu3uWZFuV3wMflbYKyodKfwn8P6 6OMbH1140KUWEes+ddEJ6zkRhjuljc+qXDyukfJW6dueHXnXJvw5cyXmssYXMXHm0l1KLMUZ iYZazEXFiQBQqJ09YwIAAA== On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 09:48:21 +0000 Peter Stephenson wrote: > > - I note in passing that "print something >&-" is explicitly not an error, > > but "print -u1 something >&-" IS an error. Also unchanged here. > > In the second case we've explicitly been told to "do something" with the > fd, which happens to be dup'ing and fdopen'ing it. There's no such code > in the first place, and there doesn't seem any point in making the > second case silent. I suppose we'd have to detect bad writes in lots of > places to pick up errors in the first case, but that would probably be > the right thing to do in principle. Ac tually, it appears this is deliberate. commit c6d589aadd706b366b5207ac155f83510e5c408e Author: Bart Schaefer Date: Mon Feb 4 19:38:40 2002 +0000 16556: No error on `print >&-'. pws