On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 07:53:59AM -0700, George Georgalis wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 1:26?PM George Georgalis <geo...@galis.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 1:09?PM <tlaro...@kergis.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So how can the test be reliable in all circumstances?
> >>
> >
> > test -t 0
> >
> > is reliable.
> >
> > I use
> >
> > tty -s || return 0
> >
> > to remind me what I'm testing for (same difference),
> > and branch out of .profile for not interactive sessions.
> >
>
> Is there a case where this is not the solution?
> When I decided this is what interactive means
> all of the edge cases went away. Is there a
> case I am not considering?
None that I'm aware of. I---as many others I think---didn't even know that
test(1) has an option to test this. It seems it's the more reliable as
long as the systems on which the script has to be interpreted as a
test(1)---or a builtin of that name---that understands the option.
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
