[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
The following reply was made to PR standards/40554; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
Subject: Re: standards/40554
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:40:50 +0700
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:00:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: Alan Barrett <apb%cequrux.com@localhost>
| On Thu, 05 Feb 2009, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
| > So, what's incorrect about the current wording?
| Our sh(1) man page implies that the n1 and n2 in [n1]>&n2 must be
| literal numbers.
I assumed that he meant that the man page says (simplified)
"duplicate stdout to n2" which kind of suggests dup2(1,n2)
whereas what really happens is dup2(n2,1).
For <& the man page uses "from" - and really (aside from the
default target fd) <& and >& are the exact same operation.
I'm not sure I'd treat the "to" as an error though, as it makes the
wording for >& match the wording for > (just as the wording for <&
matches the wording for <).
Main Index |
Thread Index |