From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17707 invoked from network); 6 May 1998 20:30:24 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 6 May 1998 20:30:24 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA27833; Wed, 6 May 1998 16:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 16:26:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <980506132628.ZM14415@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 13:26:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: <199805061652.RAA28564@taos.demon.co.uk> Comments: In reply to Andrew Main "Re: zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics" (May 6, 5:52pm) References: <199805061652.RAA28564@taos.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Z-Mail Lite (5.0.0 30July97) To: Andrew Main , zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: zsh vs. ksh coproc redirection semantics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"GgCtG2.0.qo6.vTCKr"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3936 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu 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?