Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!think!mintaka!mit-eddie!bu.edu!dartvax!coat.com
From: andyb@coat.com (Andy Behrens)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Which is more portable:  stty <   or  stty >
Message-ID: <20539@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 13 Mar 90 21:16:24 GMT
References: <3354@muffin.cme.nist.gov> <12339@smoke.BRL.MIL> <JV.90Mar13162312@squirrel.mh.nl>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: andyb@coat.com
Organization: Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Lines: 28

In article <JV.90Mar13162312@squirrel.mh.nl> jv@mh.nl (Johan Vromans) writes:
>
>  [On the topic of using stdin or stdout for stty(1): System V assumes you may
>  want to redirect the output somewhere other than the terminal being probed.]
>
> This seems quite logical to me, considering things like
>
>	STTY_FLAGS=`stty -g < /dev/tty`
>	sane() { stty ${STTY_FLAGS}; }
>
> You can't do this from your BSD .login .


You can certain capture the stty output in a variable.  BSD stty probes
stdout (not stdin), but it writes to stderr (not stdout).  So you could
write

	STTY_OUTPUT=`stty 2>&1 >/dev/tty`

Of course, BSD doesn't support 'stty -g', but that's another issue.

--
Live justly, love gently, walk humbly.
					Andy Behrens
					andyb@coat.com

uucp:   {uunet,rutgers}!dartvax!coat.com!andyb
Burlington Coat, PO Box 729, Lebanon, N.H. 03766	(603) 448-5000