From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 24 21:16:43 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2B337B401
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.SNVACAID.covad.net
	[66.166.149.50])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850A543FF2
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kientzle@acm.org)
Received: from acm.org (big.x.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54] (may be forged))
	by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5P4GbtJ082541;
	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kientzle@acm.org)
Message-ID: <3EF922BE.4070803@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:19:10 -0700
From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021005
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Artem 'Zazoobr' Ignatjev" <timon@memphis.mephi.ru>
References: <20030624183515.A42570@FreeBSD.org>
	<1056499632.662.7.camel@timon.nist>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: tcsh being dodgy, or pipe code ishoos?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: kientzle@acm.org
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:16:43 -0000

Artem 'Zazoobr' Ignatjev wrote:
> Juli Mallett wrote:
> 
>>Anyone with insight into this?
>>
>>(jmallett@big-lizard:~)39% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo + % ) )
>>1
>>+ 2
>>+ 3
>>(jmallett@big-lizard:~)40% ( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo + % ) ) | cat
>>1
>>+ +2
>>3
> 
> last cat is not necessary...
> And it's more weird than that:
> 
>>( echo 1 ; ( ( echo 2 ; echo 3 ) | xargs -I% echo -- + % ) )
> 
> 1
> -- --+  +2 
> 3
> 


Hmmm... This looks like xargs isn't waiting for the subcommand
to exit.  This looks like 'echo -- + 2' and 'echo -- + 3' are
running concurrently.

Tim