On Friday 05 March 2010 14:07:25 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: > > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:48 AM, David N. Lombard wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 12:43:39PM -0800, Kevin Dankwardt wrote: > > > >> On 03/02/2010 11:42 AM, Yan Seiner wrote: > > > >> > The '|&' operator throws an error. > > > >> > > > >> ... > > > >> What does |& have to do with a network port, anyway? Its a Bourne > > > >> Shellism for piping standard error, I believe. > > > > > > > > It's a csh-ism to pipe a comingled stdout and stderr. > > > > > > > > Bourne et al. use "2>" to redirect stderr specifically. > > > > > > 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".
hmm, i thought you phrased the question differently. as Bernhard pointed out, "|&" is short hand for "2>&1 |" -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
