In a recent note, McKown, John said: > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:01:19 -0500 > > I also like Gil's use of "scp" instead of "ssh". I've not tried it, but > I trust him that it works. > I confess -- I haven't tested it; I was speculating.
> I also just learned from Gil that "/dev/fd/?" works on z/OS UNIX. I've > been using "/dev/fd?" which also works. But "/dev/fd?" does not work on > Linux, whereas "/dev/fd/?" does. I think that I'll be changing my > habits. Oh, replace the ? with a number which is the file descriptor. > Solaris and OS X also accept "/dev/fd/?" but not "/dev/fd?". Apparently IBM quietly acceded to user pressure on this (or perhaps they wanted, internally, to port ksh with process substitution, etc.) It may have been mentioned in the Release Notes in some publication. Neither construct is specified by POSIX, but it's still baffling that IBM chose to flout widespread convention in the earlier implementation. Perhaps it was merely a typo; perhaps eliminating a directory level saved some few lines of code (at the expense, later, of forever maintaining two versions for compatibility). -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
