Re: <> redirection and notations

[peter@robots.oxford.ac.uk]

Paul writes,
> fn-%openfile	= $&openfile
> fn-%open	= %openfile r		# <file
> fn-%create	= %openfile w		# >file
> fn-%append	= %openfile a		# >>file
> fn-%open-write	= %openfile r+		# <>file
> fn-%open-create	= %openfile w+		# useless; no special syntax
> fn-%open-append	= %openfile a+		# <>>file
> 
> (the last three names are up for grabs.  the first three aren't.   
> also if people really want <>! or <<> or <>< for %open-create, it can  
> always go in, though it does seem truly pointless to me.)
> 

I personally think there's no point in having more syntax for the new
%openfile functionalities.  The es syntax would become too cluttered IMHO.
It's becoming obvious that we're running out of tokens for new features for
es, so why not be more conservative on using them.  We know that '%openfile
r+, w+, a+' are not going to be often used features, so why waste new syntax
for them?  The only reason I can think of for having <> is for sh
compatibility, but does that really matter?  It hasn't mattered too much so
far.  If it doesn't, we could still retain <> for its current purpose, and
have all it's benefits of: being different and <>foo as well <>{foo} (OK
it's not pretty but what's in appearances anyway ;-) ).

Pete.

P.S.  I think the new names are fine.