Re: funsub questions

[Kerin Millar]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 20:50:48 -0500
Zachary Santer <zsanter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would there be a purpose in implementing ${< *file*; } to be the equivalent
> of $(< *file* )? Does $(< *file* ) itself actually fork a subshell?

No, $(< file) does not fork.

> 
> Would using funsubs to capture the stdout of external commands be
> appreciably faster than using comsubs for the same?

In the case of a script that would otherwise fork many times, frequently, the 
difference is appreciable and can be easily measured. However, scripts of that 
nature sometimes benefit from being written in a way that does not involve 
comsubs. Therefore, I would place a greater value on the elimination of 
gratuitous comsubs, where possible, than to merely replace all of them with 
funsubs (notwithstanding that 5.3 has yet to be released).

-- 
Kerin Millar