Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:31:57PM +1059, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > i hate to harp on about it, but:
> >
> > in case you happen to discover the `command' command,
> > beware that its description in sh(1) is wrong.
> >
> > sh(1) says:
> > command -vV command args
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:31:57PM +1059, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> i hate to harp on about it, but:
>
> in case you happen to discover the `command' command,
> beware that its description in sh(1) is wrong.
>
> sh(1) says:
> command -vV command args ...
>
actually openbsd's sh(1) page
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 19:13 +1100, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > [heres if(3p) for some reason.]
>
> the fact that `man if' goes to a whole man page about a perl thing
> rather than just the sh(1) page, is a bit silly i think.
But you can see that `if` is documented in the 3p category which *is*
> to find out what `command blahcommand' means to sh(1), use
> whereis blahcommand
nope, thats wrong if `type blahcommand' says `builtin'.
> pdksh
i should have said `the korn shell', as ksh93 is just as bad.
> rather than what `command -V' ought to output:
> command echo is /bin/echo
if you look at command(1) after `pkg_add man-pages-posix',
you will see POSIX is largely to blame for this oversight.
some suggested advertising slogans for pdksh:
``hundreds of features--each buggier than the las
i hate to harp on about it, but:
in case you happen to discover the `command' command,
beware that its description in sh(1) is wrong.
sh(1) says:
command -vV command args ...
in fact it is:
command -vV command ...
note in particular, that, like `type',
command -V command
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:51:36AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Nov 21 01:38:41, rto...@ceti.pl wrote:
> > I guess it would not be very hard to just add few more *roff hacks
>
> Stop right here.
My horses froze hanging in the air... :-)
--
Regards,
Tomasz Rola
--
** A C programmer asked whethe
> [heres if(3p) for some reason.]
the fact that `man if' goes to a whole man page about a perl thing
rather than just the sh(1) page, is a bit silly i think.
i mean, perl isnt the default shell.
why does perl `if' get its own man page, whereas the following are missing:
* `man type' for `man sh
On Nov 21 01:38:41, rto...@ceti.pl wrote:
> I guess it would not be very hard to just add few more *roff hacks
Stop right here.
Jason McIntyre wrote (2022-11-20 21:45 CET):
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 08:09:13PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 01:32:54PM -, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > > On 2022-11-20, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > >
> > > >> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
> >
Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > [what about ssh?]
>
> man(1) should document commands you might from the shell.
Oh, so man(1) should cover *ANY* shell thing.
# man if
if(3p) Perl Programmers Reference Guide if(3p)
NAME
if - "use" a Perl module if a cond
> am i being punished in the same way as you???
its not me thats being punished...
i would encourage UNIX newbies to read volume 2 of the V7 man
https://s3.amazonaws.com/plan9-bell-labs/7thEdMan/index.html
it has the tutorials and references and all that good stuff.
it lacks the BSD stuff foun
Forgive me, I don't spend my life using ksh esoterica
But I do use ssh all the time
man AddKeysToAgent
man AddressFamily
man BatchMode
man BindAddress
man CanonicalDomains
man CanonicalizeFallbackLocal
man CanonicalizeHostname
man CanonicalizeMaxDots
man CanonicalizePermittedCNAMEs
man CASignatur
i feel i ought to repeat myself: you really ought to use:
type [command ...]
some problems with the manual:
* you have to type `man sh'. you cant type `man type'.
* sh(1) does not explain that `tracked alias' in the output of
`type' relates to the output of `hash'. see `hash' in sh(1)
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 01:38:41AM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote:
[...]
> I guess it would not be very hard to just add few more *roff hacks
> similar to one above. Or maybe a command (shell script) to retrieve
> relevant subsection from manpage and print just this one. And maybe
> also list names of su
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 08:45:01PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 08:09:13PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote:
[...]
> > I am writing this from ParrotOS (Debian derivative) and since I am
> > avid user of bash, I can do "man bash-builtins" and it prints me a
> > very nice looking su
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 08:09:13PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 01:32:54PM -, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > On 2022-11-20, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> >
> > >> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
> > >
> > > i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 01:32:54PM -, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2022-11-20, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
>
> >> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
> >
> > i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example `man while' for `man sh'?
>
> FreeBSD has a builtin(1) man page that att
indivC wrote (2022-11-19 16:13 CET):
> I can't say I understand the technical differences
> between 'type' and which(1).
> However, I will mention these points:
>
> 1. There is no man page for 'type', but there is for which(1)
try ksh(1):
typeShort form of command -V
There is also whence.
Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
>
> i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example `man while' for `man sh'?
I rather doubt that, and this is not 4.3BSD
On 2022-11-20, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
>> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
>
> i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example `man while' for `man sh'?
FreeBSD has a builtin(1) man page that attempts to list the csh(1)
and sh(1) builtins and points to the respective man pages:
> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example `man while' for `man sh'?
indivC wrote:
> I can't say I understand the technical differences
> between 'type' and which(1).
> However, I will mention these points:
>
> 1. There is no man page for 'type', but there is for which(1)
It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
I can't say I understand the technical differences
between 'type' and which(1).
However, I will mention these points:
1. There is no man page for 'type', but there is for which(1)
2. There also appears to be whereis(1). However, I can't speak
to the differences between this command and t
you really ought to use `type', not `which',
in case it is a shell function etc.
"Richard Ulmer" wrote:
> Hi all,
> I find this behaviour unexpected:
>
> $ printf foo | less --no-init | xxd
> : 666f 6f1b 5b41 1b5b 4b foo.[A.[K
>
> less prints ANSI escape codes for 'cursor up' and 'erase in line' at the
> end of my message. Interestingly, when doing
"Richard Ulmer":
> I find this behaviour unexpected:
>
> $ printf foo | less --no-init | xxd
> : 666f 6f1b 5b41 1b5b 4b foo.[A.[K
>
> less prints ANSI escape codes for 'cursor up' and 'erase in line' at the
> end of my message.
I cannot reproduce this.
$ printf foo |
27 matches
Mail list logo
