Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:20:00 +0000
From:      tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: which is "better" - /dev/fd or FIFO
Message-ID:  <YEZAoGi/G5Y+GLJR@ceres.local>
In-Reply-To: <20210307145622717830089@bob.proulx.com>
References:  <YEOMzXyvchUkMmdH@ceres.local> <20210306204633.3be9720a@gumby.homeunix.com> <YETXFrAz3D8DPvYe@ceres.local> <20210307145622717830089@bob.proulx.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

--XJ/sGbJAjCdbgli2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 03:13:14PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
>tech-lists wrote:
>> Thanks for that. It explains partly why it's not enabled by default.
>> But I wondered why it's there at all, what is the benefit of that
>> functionality (if enabled) over what (in this case, bash-commander) it
>> would use in its absence (presumably FIFO)
>
>Twice now you have written /dev/fd or FIFO but I don't see any
>connection between those two things. =20

sorry, my error. confusing file descriptors/named pipes. Ignore FIFO.

>Note that the use of /dev/fd is something that a script writer decides
>they want to use or not.  It's a new thing in the grand scheme of
>geological time and I personally both 1) only rarely ever see its use
>in scripts and 2) rather disprove of it because it isn't really a
>portable feature.  I have never felt the need to code using it myself.
>So personally I would recommend not using it..  I always scrape those
>out of scripts whenever I see that people have used them.  YMMV.
>
>Note that bash will internally simulate /dev/fd if a real system one
>is not provided.  Pretty sure anyway.  I have definitely used bash and
>seen that feature noted even on systems without /dev/fd directory support.

Basically, I'm asking why it's available to be enabled, and the reason
I'm asking *that* is because I don't know if or why or in what scenario
it would be "better".

When I'm installing a port, if there are options available, I'll look at
them and see if they're needed for my use case. I generally go for the
minimum number of options to satisfy the use case requirement, because
it usually makes life simpler. In order to do this, I need to have a
grasp on what the options enable and why. In this case, i don't know the
why, which is why I'm asking.

--=20
J.

--XJ/sGbJAjCdbgli2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=fr3/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--XJ/sGbJAjCdbgli2--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YEZAoGi/G5Y+GLJR>