> On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 02:28:00PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: >Lest some think functions can replace aliases, there's a line in the manpage >that I feel needs amending. Currently it says: > > "For almost every purpose, aliases are superseded by shell functions." > >While true, it may too likely be read by some to mean that aliases have no >useful purpose. So I'd suggest: > > "For most purposes, aliases are superseded by shell functions, though >aliases are still required in some situations".
The latter seems even more trickier to read then the previous. I would suggest scrapping both attempts at clarifications and state one (maybe two) solid pros for each and then a con for each. Or something of a mix within one sentence for the sake of brevity? I've seen & worked with both and in my opinion: --- Aliases are really meant for CLI or bashrc usage and can be quickly written. Aliases seem to have some limitations as to what statements they may contain as it's a one-liner. Functions can easily contain more complicated statements, and can also be contained within bashrc, and utilized via CLI -- but really are used within scripts. As far as system resources, I've heard functions are quicker. But I don't know if this is accurate as functions usually contain more execution statements! --- -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
