Redirections and don't put it in a subshell.
Only pipe |, which means only STDIN affects/triggers this behaviour.
Does operator also does it, as it is also STDIN?
Anyway, I don't care for executing binaries, but I do care if that is part of
sh's code, as function is.
It messes var scopes.
On May 31, 2013, at 10:59 AM, rank1see...@gmail.com
wrote:
Redirections and don't put it in a subshell.
Correct. (note: I made no such insinuation; But thanks for clarifying for
others that perhaps were not aware).
Only pipe |, which means only STDIN affects/triggers this behaviour.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Teske, Devin devin.te...@fisglobal.comwrote:
If you're arguing we have to change sh's behavior to be more compliant,
jilles already quoted XCU 2.12 (our shell is well within its right to run
any/all lvalue/rvalue operands of a pipe in a sub-shell without
In the last episode (May 31), Reid Linnemann said:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Teske, Devin
devin.te...@fisglobal.comwrote:
If you're arguing we have to change sh's behavior to be more compliant,
jilles already quoted XCU 2.12 (our shell is well within its right to
run any/all
On 31 May 2013 20:50, Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com wrote:
In the last episode (May 31), Reid Linnemann said:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Teske, Devin devin.te...@fisglobal.com
wrote:
If you're arguing we have to change sh's behavior to be more
compliant,
jilles already quoted
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:48:47AM +0200, Václav Zeman wrote:
On 27 May 2013 21:58, Reid Linnemann wrote:
from SH(1)
Note that unlike some other shells, sh executes each process in a pipe-
line with more than one command in a subshell environment and as a
child
of the sh
On 27 May 2013 21:58, Reid Linnemann wrote:
from SH(1)
Note that unlike some other shells, sh executes each process in a pipe-
line with more than one command in a subshell environment and as a
child
of the sh process.
I'm taking this to mean that redirecting to sh_f has sh_f
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman vhais...@gmail.com wrote:
Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what shell the
manpage is referring to, but it's not bash (bash does the same thing in a
pipeline).
On May 28, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Ryan Stone ryst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman vhais...@gmail.com wrote:
Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is correct. I don't know what shell the
manpage is
On May 28, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Reid Linnemann wrote:
On May 28, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Ryan Stone ryst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Václav Zeman vhais...@gmail.com wrote:
Curious. Which of the two behaviours is POSIXly correct?
I believe that /bin/sh's behaviour is
9.1-RELEASE-p3
---
#!/bin/sh
sh_f ()
{
global_scope_var=7463457
}
yes | sh_f
echo $global_scope_var
echo '
Now without /usr/bin/yes (maybe it is STDIN issue, instead) ?!?
'
sh_f
echo $global_scope_var
---
Domagoj Smolčić
from SH(1)
Note that unlike some other shells, sh executes each process in a pipe-
line with more than one command in a subshell environment and as a
child
of the sh process.
I'm taking this to mean that redirecting to sh_f has sh_f execute in a
subshell in which global_scope_var
12 matches
Mail list logo
