Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!xmission!nnrp.xmission!.POSTED.shell.xmission.com!not-for-mail
From: gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: Using << and an output pipe together in shell (bash)
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:01:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: The official candy of the new Millennium
Message-ID: <vg25cr$3uc49$1@news.xmission.com>
References: <vg0q7d$3tlel$2@news.xmission.com> <87r07v99wd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vg12fg$3tq77$1@news.xmission.com> <vg18jc$2tv5s$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 09:01:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.xmission.com; posting-host="shell.xmission.com:166.70.8.4";
	logging-data="4141193"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@xmission.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
Bytes: 1832
Lines: 29

In article <vg18jc$2tv5s$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou  <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
>Unless you put the 'nl' at the "right place"; you can write your
>example below as
>
>$ nl << EOF |
>test
>this
>EOF
>nl
>
>so the backslash is not "necessary". - As you say, the '|' needs no
>[spurious] continuation escape character if you have it at the end
>of a command. - After the lines that define the here-doc (for 'nl's
>redirection) the pipe command gets continued on the subsequent line,
>which is the line after the "EOF".

Yes, that works, too.  Thanks.

Somewhat surprisingly (to me, anyway), I think I actually prefer to stick
with; > >(cmd ...)

That has a certain beauty to it.

-- 
Reading any post by Fred Hodgin, you're always faced with the choice of:
    lunatic, moron, or troll.

I always try to be generous and give benefit of the doubt, by assuming troll.