On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 11:31:42PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Having echo aliased to `printf "%s\n" "$*"' would give you better POSIX
> > compliance too.
> No, in fact, it would not.
> Compare the output of
> ash -c 'echo "test\c"'
> versus
> printf "%s\n" "test\c"
Ah, I see. So, POSIX recognis
> 9989 * An alias shall be written as a
> command line that represents its alias definition.
cf. alias:
| The following operands shall be supported:
|
| alias-name
| Write the alias definition to standard output.
[...]
| The format for displaying aliases (
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 11:32:34PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > In the case of command -v, the alias prefix is required.
>
> Reference?
9989 * An alias shall be written as a
command line that represents its alias definition.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out!
> In the case of command -v, the alias prefix is required.
Reference?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Having echo aliased to `printf "%s\n" "$*"' would give you better POSIX
> compliance too.
No, in fact, it would not.
Compare the output of
ash -c 'echo "test\c"'
versus
printf "%s\n" "test\c"
> There's a reason why we specifically *don't* do that.
You mean, other than the fact it won't wor
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:24:21AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Are you referring to the extra new line that ash outputs after an alias?
> > If so that is indeed incorrect and will be fixed.
>
> I also interpret the leading literal "alias " to be incorrect. It's
> less useful, at any rate.
In t
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 10:42:15AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > I don't really care whether it should or shouldn't be so, but it certainly
> > seems like it *is* so. Using bash minimises the disk space used by shells
> > and is the most reliable, and using ash is faster. Are there any other
> > be
NEW PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENT
From: OUTSOURCE ENG.& MFG. INC.
Sir/Madam;
This note is to inform you of new watchdog board technology for maintaining
continuous unattended operation of PC/Servers etc. that we have released for
distribution.
We are proud to announce Watchdog Control Center featurin
> I don't really care whether it should or shouldn't be so, but it certainly
> seems like it *is* so. Using bash minimises the disk space used by shells
> and is the most reliable, and using ash is faster. Are there any other
> benefits to be had by using different shells?
Using pdksh will give yo
> Are you referring to the extra new line that ash outputs after an alias?
> If so that is indeed incorrect and will be fixed.
I also interpret the leading literal "alias " to be incorrect. It's
less useful, at any rate.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
10 matches
Mail list logo
