On Wed November 15 2006 15:08, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Since the file was used to provide both the bash builtin and the > > standalone test, and -a is undocumented in the test manpage, it is > > most likely a bash feature... why not use -e, which is documented > > and available in dash, bash, and test? > > That's not the -a that we're talking about; that's the unary -a and > we're talking about the binary -a. Use of -a as a binary operator is > part of the XSI extension of POSIX/SUS and is definitely not specific > to bash. I don't know enough about shell history to know who came up > with it initially, but it would surprise me if it were bash.
Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement... "I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and refused to declare #!/bin/bash." ...and the fact that dash, bash, and test, all document their binary -a operator as having the same behaviour. Is their some Bourne style command interpreter other than dash in Debian which offers to provide "sh"? - Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
