Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #11711

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 15:59 -0400
Message-ID <mailman.655.1445284748.7904.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink)
References <56218DA5.8030501@tlinx.org> <5622CDC8.2030102@case.edu> <5622EB23.6020700@tlinx.org> <20151019122800.GS27325@eeg.ccf.org> <56254945.6020606@tlinx.org>

Show all headers | View raw


On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49:25PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >A simple example:
> >
> >diff -u <(sort file1) <(sort file2)
> ----
> 	You claim <(sort file1) is a filename?

$ ls -l <(sort .bashrc)
lr-x------ 1 wooledg wooledg 64 Oct 19 15:56 /dev/fd/63 -> pipe:[55954]

ls thinks it is.

The whole point of this construction is that it generates a thing that
can be open()ed by a program that isn't bash.  So you can drop it into
programs that require a filename argument, like diff.

Nobody ever said it's a regular file.

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 15:59 -0400

csiph-web