Re: Not to set PIPESTATUS unless necessary

[Koichi Murase]

2024年5月19日(日) 12:18 Peng Yu <pengyu.ut@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 6:19 PM Koichi Murase <myoga.murase@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2024年5月18日(土) 22:57 Peng Yu <pengyu.ut@gmail.com>:
>> > On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 5:21 AM Andreas Kähäri <andreas.kahari@abc.se> 
>> > wrote:
>> > > You would also need to take the POSIX standard's definiton of a pipeline
>> > > into account, which I belive would trumph any dictionary's definition
>> > > when it comes to implementing a Unix shell:
>> > >
>> > >         A pipeline is a sequence of one or more commands separated by
>> > >         the control operator '|'.   [1]
>> > >
>> > > This is more or less the same as what you found in the bash manual,
>> > > except for the extension that bash provides with |&
>> >
>> > In that case, the POSIX is also defective.
>>
>> It's not a language defect. POSIX *intentionally* includes a single
>> command in the category of the pipeline as is clear from the formal
>> grammar provided by POSIX, which Andreas has also quoted.
>>
>> > It is an impossibility that
>> > one command is separated by a control operator.
>
>
> You have to analyze each case separately. You can not justify one error by 
> say others do similar samethings as a convention, therefore it is not an 
> error. The logic is not correct.
>
> The grammar of POSIX could stay as is except the name of “pipeline” is wrong.
>
> Based your logic, you could say transgender women is a woman. That is just 
> wrong. Transgender women is not a woman, it is something different from man 
> and woman. Calling transgender women as women, demanding the same rights as 
> women can cause all sorts of problems.

Yes, we need to analyze each case separately. The reason that I
commented about the superficial language is because you seem to talk
about the superficial language. What is your reasoning for judging it
wrong to count a single command as a kind of pipeline? There are all
sorts of problems in identifying transgender people as either women or
men, which are not just a superficial language issue. But then, what
are the actual problems with counting a single command as a kind of
the pipeline? Please don't talk about the superficial meaning of
``pipeline'' as a language. What is the problem?

> There is YouTube video on doublespeak.

Clearly, the choice of the term `pipeline' doesn't have any particular
intention that you imagine. It's defined that way because it's
practically useful that way.