[TUHS] Pipes (was Re: After 50 years, what has the Impact of Unix been?)

[Alexis]

Chet Ramey via TUHS <tuhs at tuhs.org> writes:

> On 12/5/24 5:03 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> The <() , >()  syntax is a bash extension. Not all shells 
>> support
>> it. And
>> I couldn't find them in POSIX Issue 8.
>
> Credit where credit is due: I picked them up from ksh93, and 
> extended
> them to use named pipes on systems where /dev/fd isn't 
> available.

i must say i was moderately surprised to learn a few years ago 
that process substitution wasn't in POSIX - i find it succinct 
syntactic sugar. There's a post on Chris Siebenmann's blog about 
some of the issues involved, including the /dev/fd issue:

  https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/ProcessSubstitutionWhyLate

Can anyone point me to any discussions about process substitution 
potentially becoming part of POSIX? This search on the Austin 
Group tracker didn't yield any useful results:

https://austingroupbugs.net/search.php?project_id=0&search=process+substitution&sticky_issues=off&sortby=last_updated&dir=DESC&hide_status_id=-2&FILTER_SEARCH_PLATFORM=


Alexis.