On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 07:12 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:

> Granted, the $(...) may be easier to work with because of these caveats, 
> but as it seems the behavior is known and documented, I'm not sure it's 
> correct to say that `...` is broken.

I will retract the "broken" and would like to replace it with
"different". This exercise started when Bruce said the two methods
were "interchangeable". I said they were not. Bruce said he needed
an example to prove this. I provided it.

The two are *not* interchangeable. So, because one works using 
expected syntax and the other does not, I erroneously said that
one is broken, when in actuality, it just doesn't work as expected,
yet the other syntax does.

Is that better phrasing?

-- 
Randy

rmlinux: [bogomips 3993.32] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.2]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
11:04:53 up 1 day, 18:16, 7 users, load average: 0.13, 0.06, 0.04


-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to