On 30/06/2021 16:56, Chet Ramey via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
On 6/30/21 11:49 AM, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open
Group wrote:
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
"tg...@mirbsd.org via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
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
On 6/30/21 11:49 AM, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
wrote:
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
?~>&?
On 6/29/21 5:09 PM, tg...@mirbsd.org via austin-group-l at The Open Group
wrote:
I know the GNU bash extension >& (which incidentally
violates POSIX on the parse level) but not ~>&…
It doesn't. It's been unspecified for over 30 years.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' -
On 2021-06-29 20:59:51 -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> On 2021/06/29 17:55, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2021-06-29 13:30:53 -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> > > ---
> > >No. the pwd utility has had its stdout redirected by its
> > > parent, "the shell". Since the faulty redirection was done by parent,
>
All
Enclosed are the minutes of the Monday meeting
regards
Andrew
Minutes of the 28th June 2021 Teleconference Austin-1141 Page 1 of 1
Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group. 30th June 2021
Attendees:
Nick Stoughton, USENIX, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22 OR
Don Cragun, IEEE
