3 ms·
I've been thinking a bit about this before and I think that not just one but a whole lot of additional streams would be useful. By default all commands would st
by eriknstr 10y ago
I've been thinking a bit about this before and I think that not just one but a whole lot of additional streams would be useful. By default all commands would still use stdout and stderr only but you would be able to tell them to use other streams as well for their various data.
Furthermore, each stream should be possible to pipe to a different process if you wish independently of the other streams.
To a small degree this might be possible already with named pipes.
- MrQuincle 10y agoI just started playing around with IPC ideas with processes tellin each other which flags they would like: https://github.com/mrquincle/bipipes https://github.com/mrquincle/bipipes I think socket pairs would be great for it. Nothing implemented yet!
- Klathmon 10y agoHonestly this is one area where PowerShell kind of nailed it. I still don't use it enough, but when it comes to scripting PS's objects beat the hell out of these
- ncw33 10y agoIt is possible already - you can do `command 2>&4` to separate the output from one command in a pipeline into its own stream, then do `command2 <&4` to pull from the further down the pipeline.
- eriknstr 10y agoI would like more pipes for each process. This would allow many things, for example searching for multiple terms across all files in the whole file system in one go without opening each file more than once, and then grouping the different results together in accordance with the term that they matched.