6 Dec
2024
6 Dec
'24
6:46 a.m.
Chet Ramey via TUHS <tuhs(a)tuhs.org> writes:
On 12/5/24 5:03 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
i must say i was moderately surprised to learn a few years ago
that process substitution wasn't in POSIX - i find it succinct
syntactic sugar. There's a post on Chris Siebenmann's blog about
some of the issues involved, including the /dev/fd issue:
https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/ProcessSubstitutionWhyLate
Can anyone point me to any discussions about process substitution
potentially becoming part of POSIX? This search on the Austin
Group tracker didn't yield any useful results:
https://austingroupbugs.net/search.php?project_id=0&search=process+subs…
Alexis.
The <() , >() syntax is a bash extension.
Not all shells
support
it. And
I couldn't find them in POSIX Issue 8.
Credit where credit is due: I picked them up from ksh93, and
extended
them to use named pipes on systems where /dev/fd isn't
available.