On Friday 05 March 2010 16:02:08 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 05 March 2010 15:51:35 David N. Lombard wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:07:25PM -0700, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Friday 05 March 2010 10:13:00 David N. Lombard wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:22:54AM -0700, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > bash-4.1 supports "|&" now as well as some similar variants > > > > > > > > Is '|&' any different than "2>&1"? > > > > > > the former is a pipe while the latter is a redirect. ignoring that, > > > let's go with "yes". > > > > Clearly I failed to express the complete thought. > > your latter example above lacks a pipe. the example below has a pipe. > > > How does > > > > producer |& consumer > > > > differ from > > > > producer 2>&1 | consumer > > > > beside a more compact representation? > > as i said, "yes"
David: "Is it any different?" Mike: "Yes." David: "How does it differ?" Mike: "I said yes." Now I'm kind of curious, too. As far as I can tell, 2>&1 has worked just fine for years as long as you sequence it before the pipe, and David's initial question seemed pretty clear to me... On a related note, at what point does bash stop pretending and just officially import all of perl syntax and cpan, anyway? I install bash 2.05b on my embedded systems, and I'd be pretty happy if busybox ash handled the stuff that had. But first I've got to get back to poking at the zlib rewrite. Spent a week and change in california, kind of distracted... :) Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
