"tg...@mirbsd.org via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
<austin-group-l@opengroup.org> wrote:
> Don Cragun dixit:
>
> >No.
> [?]
>
> Erm, yes. For some reason, I assumed the OP wrote &> instead of >&
> which have the same meaning in GNU bash (but &> is the parse-trouble
> one even if the bash manpage actively recommends it). I guess their
> ?~>&? confused me. My point of _please_ using ?>file 2>&1? instead
> is still valid, ofc.
BTW: I would not call it a hard parse error but a semantic problem, since the
standard only mentions numbers after >&
ksh
echo bla >& /dev/zero
ksh: /dev/zero: bad file unit number
Bourne Shell
echo bla >& /dev/zero
/dev/zero: bad number
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
