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	2015-10-19 08:28 -0400
Message-ID	<mailman.631.1445257732.7904.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink)
References	<56218DA5.8030501@tlinx.org> <5622CDC8.2030102@case.edu> <5622EB23.6020700@tlinx.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 05:43:15PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
> >I think you're missing that process substitution is a word expansion
> >that is defined to expand to a filename.
> -----
> 	??? I've never seen a usage where it expands to a filename and
> is treated as such.

A simple example:

diff -u <(sort file1) <(sort file2)

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

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> - 2015-10-19 08:28 -0400

csiph-web