Re: exec | wc isn't very useful...

[Anthony Heading <aheading@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 07:18:00PM +0000, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> >     exec | wc
> 
> The syntax doesn't make sense.  You're piping the output of "exec" on
> its own, which doesn't do anything, to "wc". 

Yes... doesn't that just mean that it's free to be assigned any
meaning that an implementer might care to give it?

> Try this:
> exec > >(wc)
> Something like this got broken at one point (by me) but is working in
> the latest version of the shell.

Ah.  Perfect.  I'm sure tried that before and it didn't work -
perhaps I hit the period when it was broken...

> A pipeline is fundamentally different from a redirection.

I don't quite see that - aside from the very real underlying
implementation issues, what is wrong with a conceptual model
that views:
    a | b | c
as pure syntactic sugar for:
    a > >(b > >(c))
?

Would it not be appealing to _define_
    exec | wc
to mean:
    exec > >(wc)

given that it doesn't currently mean anything at all?

Regardless, appreciate your help with identifying a working
syntax...

Rgds

Anthony

This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended
as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial
instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices,
data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein 
do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries 
and affiliates