Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?

From	Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org>
Newsgroups	gnu.bash.bug
Subject	Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?
Date	2015-10-26 08:27 -0400
Message-ID	<mailman.1069.1445862466.7904.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <20151019122800.GS27325@eeg.ccf.org> <56254945.6020606@tlinx.org> <20151019154705253009402@bob.proulx.com> <56285092.2020701@tlinx.org> <20151023154221971048598@bob.proulx.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:01:37PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> The /proc/self/fd/ directory is a kernel construct.  It does not have
> normal file system semantics.

> And really what would be a sane purpose in being able to remove files
> from it?  What would that do?  Would that make any sense at all?  I
> think it wouldn't make any sense.

Well, it *could* conceivably act like close().  But that's a bit
off topic here.

Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2015-10-26 08:27 -0400

csiph-web