if you are talking to a plan 9 server, stderr already works:
; cpu -c echo fu
fu
; cpu -c echo fu '>[1=2]' >/dev/null
fu
On Fri Jan 19 09:39:07 EST 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My question (perhaps badly phrased) was more about the decision not to
> support stderr, why was it done? In a pure plan9 enviroment we already have
> a protocol to mux and demux file descriptors as demonstarted in cpu(1).
>
> On a similar topic a file like /dev/cpunote could forwarward notes to
> the remote process to ensure it dies when told to rather than assuming
> it will see an EOF on its input one day.
>
> Was it just too much hassle for too little reward or am I missing someting,
> is there a good reason why this just cannot work.
>
> -Steve
