Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!sbphy.ai.mit.edu!bfox
From: bfox@sbphy.ai.mit.edu (Brian Fox)
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: piping error output in Bash 1.04
Message-ID: <9001032013.AA28723@sbphy.Ucsb.EDU>
Date: 3 Jan 90 20:13:08 GMT
References: <1990Jan3.182805.2370@smsc.sony.com>
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: bfox@ai.mit.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 37


   Date: 3 Jan 90 18:28:05 GMT
   From: dce@smsc.sony.com  (David Elliott)
   Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp.
   References: <5877@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
   Sender: bug-bash-request@prep.ai.mit.edu

   In article <5877@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lupton@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Robert Lupton) writes:
   >Bash supports the csh style redirection of both error and stdout to a file:
   >	foo >& bar
   >but not 
   >	foo |& bar
   >	
   >I'd like to see this added, but Brian says that he's unconvinced.

This is heresay.  Please quote me.

   "Unconvinced"?

Why are you responding to heresay?

   3. If bash is going to emulate csh, it needs to emulate it in all
      areas.  Doing just part of the job is not just inconvenient, it's
      confusing.

Why do some people infer that Bash is supposed to emulate Csh?  The name
of the shell stands for Bourne Again SHell, so I would hope that gives
people an idea of what this shell must be compatible with.

Bash is a POSIX shell.  To the extent that I can support useful features
of other shells, I will do so.

   Maybe Brian could give reasons for his objections?

Maybe I could object first?

Brian "Take this job and shove it" Fox