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