Eric beat me to this. :-) Odd that 'reply all' didn't work for you...
ah, but now I understand why (see below). Anyway, last time I
intentionally did not redirect to the list. I make it policy to
indicate that you should do that, otherwise I am publicly re-posting a
private correspondence without permission, which maybe you wanted to
stay private. This way I am explicitly giving you permission to do
that.
A commendable decision, though in this case it wouldn't have affected
me either way since I was robbed of my privacy last summer so really
there's no such thing as far as I'm concerned.
In this case, yes. IFS is used for word splitting, which you can read
about in bash's man page (look for 'splitting' and also IFS) if you
haven't already, i.e. it will affect lots of things (so be sure to
save/restore it around that pseudoscript). So when I say 'for p in
$PATH', '$PATH' is split by ':' instead of the default (which, of the
defaults - check the man page for that - the one that usually matters
is ' ').
honestly, bash seems more like an OS than a shell! I so need to study
it further, though first I need to find shelter and food since Canada
is really cold for the homeless! :)
So you're recommending a builtin over an external? This seems to
conflict with the statement that which is the best. A bit confusing
but
okay.
A built-in is correct but not portable (e.g. for a script that might
be run on ksh, or worse, /bin/sh on not-Linux). An external is
portable but not /necessarily/ correct (but 99%+ of the time the two
will agree).
What do you mean by "correct"?
Personally, I prefer the idea of a modular shell, not a monolithic
shell, as it seems to allow a greater diversity on non embedded
systems.
1. Just to clarify, /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash, just checked.
Yes, on most (all that I know of) Linux systems. It is not, for
example, on Cygwin (where it is a /copy/ of /bin/bash), and on Solaris
it is a totally different shell.
I'd almost love for there to be a tool that automagically links various
locations to one path within each distribution, so if you're on a new
system, you run this little script and it does the standardization as
per your liking. Ever used such a tool?
Hmm... ah, yes, /that's/ why 'reply to all' doesn't work... when I CC
you, Thunderbird doesn't know to translate the headers. Bummer. :-)
Guess I need to remember to set reply-to: when I CC someone.
That open source, seems to not know much great things, such as toasting
toast on a pentium! That doesn't seem like a lot of code for
Thunderbird to be able to do. Though I answered erronously to fsck on
my only Gnunix box and now it says my ext3 is missing metadata headers,
so I'm using a G4 and tcsh until I learn more kernel/fs I suppose.
That explains the latency of my reply. :)
_______________________________________________
Bug-bash mailing list
Bug-bash@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash
