On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 20:50:48 -0500
Zachary Santer <zsan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would there be a purpose in implementing ${< *file*; } to be the equivalent
> of $(< *file* )? Does $(< *file* ) itself actually fork a subshell?
No, $(< file) does not fork.
>
> Would using funsubs to capture the stdout of external commands be
> appreciably faster than using comsubs for the same?
In the case of a script that would otherwise fork many times, frequently, the
difference is appreciable and can be easily measured. However, scripts of that
nature sometimes benefit from being written in a way that does not involve
comsubs. Therefore, I would place a greater value on the elimination of
gratuitous comsubs, where possible, than to merely replace all of them with
funsubs (notwithstanding that 5.3 has yet to be released).
--
Kerin Millar
