Re: Why can't I say "&>&3"? Bug or feature?

[DJ Mills]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Dan Douglas <ormaaj@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I don't like &> to begin with. It makes the already cryptic redirection
> syntax
> that beginners struggle to understand even more confusing by adding a
> pointless shortcut with a non-obvious meaning instead of just being
> explicit.
> If you don't understand the copy descriptor and all of a sudden see yet
> another use for the & character to the left of a redirection operator,
> you're
> going to be even more confused.
> --
> Dan Douglas
>
>
I completely agree with this. The '>&' syntax that's synonymous with '&>'
is even worse for confusing beginners. There isn't really a point to adding
this feature, imo, since it's easy to do it the regular way and it's more
explicit/obvious what you mean.

I also think that >&3 2>&1 would be what &>&3 actually does, not >&3 2>&3.
Sure, they're the same in function, but it's not the same as >file 2>file.
Again, this is part of that confusion thing. The copy descriptor is already
complicated enough, there's no reason to make it more so.