[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Help-bash] exec > >(tee -a foo.log) alternative?
From: |
Roger |
Subject: |
Re: [Help-bash] exec > >(tee -a foo.log) alternative? |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:35:04 -0900 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 10:15:49AM +0200, Pierre Gaston wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:04 AM, adrelanos <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> exec > >(tee -a foo.log)
>> exec 2> >(tee -a foo.log >&2)
>>
>> Is there any alternative to the above statements? I find it troublesome,
>> that these processes aren't cleaned up after the script terminated.
>>
>
>you can put your code in, say, :
>main () {
>....
>}
>main "$@" | tee -a foo.log
Well stick me in the rear with a shish kabob stick and call me a dummy!
Funny how I simply overlooked this, while even knowing a little ASM/C!
A little more research shows:
Bashing Linux; Conventions; Posted August 1, 2009 by malkodan in Bash, Linux,
System Administration forums.
http://bashinglinux.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/conventions/
Interesting read. Number one reason I enjoy monitoring lists are for gems
likes this. ;-)
This really gets into breaking code down into functions for increasing
readability and reusability. For which seems to be a feature based on one's
skills. (Breaking code down for increasing readability or easy comprehension,
seems to be the standard for the creation of all computer languages.)
>Is it also recommended/possible to avoid involving "tee"? For
>> performance reasons maybe?
Ditto. I only use tee when using the command line shell.
>> Cheers,
>> adrelanos
--
Roger
http://rogerx.freeshell.org/