> But in general, no, there's probably not a lot of use for it, but nor
> is there any particular reason to add special case code to prohibit
> it.
I was thinking, most languages have names for functions and such, but
sh is one of the few languages in which a zero-length routine name is
even repre
Date:Sun, 29 Sep 2024 23:59:48 + (UTC)
From:RVP
Message-ID:
| This is _very_ surprising; esp. when /bin/sh doesn't allow chars.
| like `/' and `.' in the function name.
Huh?
sh $ a.v() echo I have a dot in my name
sh $ a.v
I have a dot in my name
You can
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Robert Elz wrote:
In NetBSD's sh you can actually do
''() { echo nothing; }
(where the function body can be anything of course), then the empty-string
command (as distinct from absent command) does exist, and works, but I would
not recommend this to anyone, it isn'
As I understand, the performance problem of the read built-in utility
originates from its need to read one byte at a time in order not to
swallow input it doesn't process.
Would it make sense to add an "exclusive" option (call it "-x" for now)
to read, where "read -x" essentially means "I promi
POSIX requires that PATH searching be done only if the identifier
(aka "file") has no '/' (if it has, it is a "path").
Allow searching qualified filenames, i.e. Resource Identifier,
like dk/ctl, vect/in/dxf by setting an environment variable
PATH_SEARCH_OPT with the setting 'Q' in the definiti
If the execvp(3) checks that the name passed is not the empty string,
posix_spawnp(3) doesn't with the file argument.
Is it intended?
--
Thierry Laronde
http://www.kergis.com/
http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 2
