On Do, 07 Apr 2016, David Champion wrote:
> > but printf for parameterised output:
> >
> > printf '%s\n' "$arbitrary_value"
>
> I've started leaning on printf for newline-less printing lately -- it's
> just easier. But you must be careful to use 'printf %s "$foo"' instead
> of just 'printf $fo
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:21:24PM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> For several years starting in '83 the group I worked with authored
> some of the AT&T courses on shell programming. This was one defect
> that we reported in the Bourne shell, but not the Korn shell courses.
So when is the first meeti
On 07Apr2016 22:27, derek martin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:23:18PM -0700, David Champion wrote:
Speaking of which, it's taken me until the last year to use $(command)
consistently instead of `command`, and I'm not sure anymore why I was
a stickler. I assume some older shell didn't supp
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 08:51:52AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 07Apr2016 10:37, derek martin wrote:
> >I've yet to notice any of the so-called benefits of getting older,
> >that people sometimes extoll...
>
> My father once asserted that it was better than the alternative.
Fair point! On
What fun!
* On 07 Apr 2016, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
> Ah. I like zsh for my interactive shell. But we always leave root's shell
> alone. However, I am a _very_ strong advocate for writing scripts for
> /bin/sh, and avoiding bashisms for exactly your reasons above. Am I alone in
> wincing everyt
On 07Apr2016 10:37, derek martin wrote:
I've yet to notice any of the so-called benefits of getting older,
that people sometimes extoll...
My father once asserted that it was better than the alternative.
Probably fixed in modern interactive shells. Note your test is
testing your interactive
