From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14944 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2002 00:18:21 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 25 Mar 2002 00:18:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 26208 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2002 00:18:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 16897 Received: (qmail 26182 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2002 00:18:06 -0000 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:17:37 -0800 (PST) From: Wayne Davison X-X-Sender: To: Bart Schaefer Cc: Zsh hackers list Subject: Re: Piping stderr (was Re: Two bug reports) In-Reply-To: <1020324190207.ZM30608@candle.brasslantern.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Bart Schaefer wrote: > I really think zsh should be tracking >(...) as a job and waiting for > it rather than treating it as if disowned. Yes, that would be a good change, IMO. > That would be a much cleaner solution from the viewpoint of the shell > language (though possibly a bit messier internally) than would adding > a new pipe syntax. I agree. After looking at my proposed stderr-pipe syntax, I don't like it very much. So, using the existing 2>>(command) syntax is a good way to go, especially if zsh could be made to wait for the "command" to complete. ..wayne..