> From: Eric Blake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Herb Martin; cygwin@cygwin.com
> > man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to admit > that "hash" > > is exists, i.e., is a built-in. > > Yes, bash documentation is not the best packaged (I like the > Solaris man pages for shell builtins much better). What `man > hash' is trying to tell you to do is run `man bash', then > search the BUILTINS section for hash. > > hash --help is nearly as bad, unless perhaps you already > > know how it works and just need the switch letter. > Yes, the bash maintainer did not add the --help option to his > builtins. Instead, bash provides the builtin help command. > Try `help hash' to see the subset of `man bash' relevant to > the hash command. hash --help gives two swith only (fairly cryptic lines). BUT, help hash is much better than anything else I have seen so far. Thanks. (I had not even been TRYING "help" thinking that --help, man, or info were the choices for getting help.) Thanks again, and I really appreciate eveyone else's help too. -- Herb Martin -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
