From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2932 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2001 18:13:09 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 27 Mar 2001 18:13:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 8864 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2001 18:13:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13798 Received: (qmail 8853 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2001 18:12:59 -0000 Subject: Re: INTERACTIVE vs. SHINSTDIN In-Reply-To: <1010325234953.ZM11680@candle.brasslantern.com> from Bart Schaefer at "Mar 25, 2001 11:49:53 pm" To: Bart Schaefer Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 19:12:57 +0100 (BST) CC: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Zefram Bart Schaefer wrote: >Hmm, so SHINSTDIN is true, but in fact the shell is not reading commands >from stdin ... yet commands started by the shell read from the actual stdin, >not from where the shell is reading commands from ... I suppose one can get >some interesting effects this way, but is it really the correct behavior? We changed it to be that way some time ago. In interactive shells, commands are read by ZLE, which talks to the tty, regardless of stdin. All is as it should be. (Leave out the -i in your test case and commands *are* read from stdin.) -zefram