Re: <(...), >(...) and fds above 9

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2019-07-02 at 16:19 +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2019-07-02 13:12:35 +0000, Peter Stephenson:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2019-07-02 at 13:20 +0100, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> > > 
> > > 2019-07-02 09:59:36 +0100, Peter Stephenson:
> > > Note that ksh93 marks the fds above 2 that are open with
> > > exec (exec 7< file or exec {fd}< file) with close-on-exec
> > > (independently of whether the exec is done in background or
> > > not)
> > This will do that for file descriptors managed with varid or builtins from
> > modules, though it doesn't change the behaviour for file descriptors
> > managed directly by number.  I'm wondering if that's too traditional to
> > be worth any pain of changing --- {fd} is a much more manageable
> > interface.
> [...]
> 
> Note that I was not suggesting that zsh should do the same. That
> close-on-exec on ksh93 adds more confusion than it helps. No
> other shell does it AFAIK. That means that you need to work
> around it like:

That's fine, no need to commit it.

pws