Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:21:22 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: head behaviour Message-ID: <4C0C1F62.8050206@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86d3w3yflj.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20100605201242.C79345B52@mail.bitblocks.com> <4C0AB448.2040104@FreeBSD.org> <86r5kk6xju.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4C0C1A0B.4090409@FreeBSD.org> <86d3w3yflj.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/06/10 15:13, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > The second command will receive whatever is left after the first is > done. Otherwise, read(1) loops wouldn't work. You chose a poor > example, since cat(1) consumes*everything*. Fair enough. My point remains though, using this technique is liable to lead to unpredictable results. :) Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C0C1F62.8050206>