From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20030 invoked from network); 11 Oct 1999 08:13:11 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 11 Oct 1999 08:13:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 7287 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 1999 08:12:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8198 Received: (qmail 7280 invoked from network); 11 Oct 1999 08:12:53 -0000 Subject: Re: PATCH: 3.0.6/3.1.6: Re: All sorts of file-descriptor strangeness In-Reply-To: <991010211147.ZM2563@candle.brasslantern.com> from Bart Schaefer at "Oct 10, 1999 9:11:47 pm" To: schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com (Bart Schaefer) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:12:52 +0100 (BST) Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL48 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram Bart Schaefer wrote: >zagzig[21] coproc tr a-z A-Z >[1] 2510 >zagzig[22] exec 5<&p >zagzig[23] ls -l /proc/self/fd ... >Should descriptor 5 have been passed on to "ls" in this manner? Yes. You explicitly opened fd 5; it should be passed on to child processes that you create. > In particular, I think >it would break this: > > coproc foo > bar <(baz <&p) Ah. It probably would. The coprocess fds are more of a special case than I realised. -zefram