Re^2: Standard handles inherited from a utf-8 enabled shell

Perl never automatically adds the :encoding layer appropriate for your terminal, even if that terminal uses chcp 65001

That was never in question. Windows was never in question. To the best of my knowledge the OP of the original problem was using some flavour of *nix.

The question was whether (under *nix), the standard handles inherited by a perl process from a Unicode enabled terminal (session) might have some influence upon how output from those standard handles, was handled by the OS. Specifically a pipe in this case.

The answer is no. But I didn't know, so I asked.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

Comment on Re^2: Standard handles inherited from a utf-8 enabled shell

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Standard handles inherited from a utf-8 enabled shell by Anonymous Monk on Mar 23, 2012 at 01:36 UTC
I took a stab at an unclear question. Your clarification still talks about handles inherited from a session or terminal, but handles are inherited from a process. The poster of the question is most definitely a Windows user, but the answer I gave is not Windows specific. Perl never automatically adds the :encoding layer appropriate for your terminal. Pipes don't even have anything to do with terminals.	[reply]
Re^4: Standard handles inherited from a utf-8 enabled shell by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 23, 2012 at 02:06 UTC
The poster of the question is most definitely a Windows user, Really? Then how come he says: but it is an older version of Perl running on Red Hat.? Did he say it just to confuse us? Your clarification still talks about handles inherited from a session or terminal, but handles are inherited from a process. Wow. You are really on form today aren't you. (Hence the anonymous post no doubt.) How does a user interact with a session or terminal? Could it be though a shell? And isn't a shell a process? And when you run another process -- say perl -- from that shell process, doesn't that secondary process inherit its standard handles from it? And is it totally inconceivable that setting a session or terminal as Unicode enabled, has influence on that shell process? Pipes don't even have anything to do with terminals. Really? Isn't it the case that command line pipes between processes are established by the shell process? And tell me, how do you interact with a "terminal" except through a shell process? With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. The start of some sanity?	[reply]