Re: standards/40554

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR standards/40554; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
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>
     Message-ID:  <20090205190007.A6AC663C07D%narn.NetBSD.org@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 <).
 
 kre