----Original Message----
>From: Herb Martin
>Sent: 15 August 2005 16:03
>>> 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.)
From the point of view of an outsider following this thread, it's _still_
not at all clear if you've realised that you were being told to type "man
bash", not "man hash". Pay very close attention to the first letter of the
second word of each!
I just thought someone ought to mention it in case you and Eric have been
talking completely at cross purposes.....
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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/
