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

Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #11711 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to gnu.bash.bug

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#11711 — Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?

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.

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | gnu.bash.bug

csiph-web