Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:04:41 -0700 From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Lane <lane@joeandlane.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cat /dev/urandom Message-ID: <p5d5p5ymnq.5p5@mail.opusnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200507262019.25060.lane@joeandlane.com> (lane@joeandlane.com's message of "Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:19:24 -0500") References: <20050726183029.M97284@neptune.atopia.net> <d4b4435a0507261647325c336c@mail.gmail.com> <ehhdehys9c.deh@mail.opusnet.com> <200507262019.25060.lane@joeandlane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lane <lane@joeandlane.com> writes: > I think the backticks (and shell variables) actually send the output to a > pipe, not the screen. I don't know why you said either part of that. I didn't imply the latter and AFAIK the former is untrue (unless you ask the shell to send their output to a pipe); they "send" their command output (or variable value) to the shell as it does command and variable subsitution on your shell command line. Read "Command Substitution" in the "sh" manpage. I suppose there might be pipes involved in the shell innerds, but it's not useful to think about them. The output of the backticks, etc., becomes a part of the post-subsitution command input to the shell. The shell might or might not then send some of it to the screen, or run a command that outputs to the screen, depending upon what the command is.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p5d5p5ymnq.5p5>