From: "Stéphane Aulery" <saulery@free.fr>
To: Stephane CHAZELAS <stephane.chazelas@gmail.com>
Cc: 501566@bugs.debian.org, dash@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug#501566: [MAN] Clarify two redirection mechanisms
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 22:22:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141208212203.GA13333@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141208203738.GC4010@chaz.gmail.com>
Le lundi 08 décembre 2014 à 08:37:38, Stephane CHAZELAS a écrit :
> 2014-12-08 19:50:05 +0100, Stéphane Aulery:
> >>>> [n1]>&n2 Redirect standard output (or fd n1) to the same "open
> >>>> file description" as on fd n2.
> >>>>
> >>>> [n1]>&n2 Copy fd n2 as stdout (or fd n1)
> >>>>
> >>>> [n1]>&n2 Redirect standard output (or fd n1) to the same
> >>>> resource as currently open on fd n2.
>
> > >> "Resource" is rather unwieldy, how about simply "file"?
> > >
> > > "file" could be misleading
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > IMO, "resource" is vague enough so as not to give the wrong idea
> > > and I like that wording because it conveys the intended
> > > mechanism clearly ("redirect to same thing as"). But I agree
> > > it's not ideal.
> >
> > It is true that "resource" is dissonant as "file" is too restrictive. The
> > term "file descriptor" is used above. Why not use it again?
> [...]
>
> If you say redirect fd n1 to fd n2, you confuse people (and I've
> seen a lot of people being confused in such a way) as they
> start thinking the fds become somehow linked (for instance that
> in 2>&1 > file, stderr goes to stdout and then both to "file"
> which is not the case). When you start thinking of "&" as
> "/address/ of" (yet another improper wording) or "resource
> currently open on", that clears that confusion.
>
> If you don't like the "resource" wording, you can always got for
> the "copy" one above or the POSIX wording:
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_07_05
As for me, I'm not bothered by the word "resource". It's ok for me as
"copy". But Herbert does not agree, so I can not force him:-)).
I wonder more and more if Herbert is willing to accept this tiny patch
or another. I would not be wasting his time if he does not want or can
not take care of that. This is free software, there is no obligation.
This is my last attempt, if there is no consensus I close the bug
regarding Debian.
Have a nice day.
--
Stéphane Aulery
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-08 21:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-08 18:50 Bug#501566: [MAN] Clarify two redirection mechanisms Stéphane Aulery
2014-12-08 20:37 ` Stephane CHAZELAS
2014-12-08 21:22 ` Stéphane Aulery [this message]
2014-12-08 21:56 ` Jonathan Nieder
2014-12-08 22:15 ` Stéphane Aulery
2014-12-09 16:54 ` Bug#501566: " Stephane CHAZELAS
2014-12-11 6:06 ` Herbert Xu
2014-12-11 9:03 ` saulery
2014-12-25 22:51 ` Herbert Xu
2014-12-26 11:35 ` Stéphane Aulery
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141208212203.GA13333@free.fr \
--to=saulery@free.fr \
--cc=501566@bugs.debian.org \
--cc=dash@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stephane.chazelas@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).