Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 22/09/2002 (10:01) : > It pains me that you used that harsh language to describe my comment.
Sorry it wasn't my intention. > just caught up in the excitement of the moment! :-) Those are /bin/sh > syntax, which I prefer better than anything that depends upon > /bin/csh. I don't know why you thought that was bash only. [*] Somebody mentioned that it was only ash and bash that had this command. > Those commands are defined by SUSv2. I am pleased that I can refer > you to these pages for your edification. (And perhaps mine too in the > case that I made a mistake here. I am only too well aware that the > sword can cut both ways.) > > http://www.unix-systems.org/single_unix_specification_v2/xcu/type.html > > http://www.unix-systems.org/single_unix_specification_v2/xcu/command.html Thanks. > > Repeat after me, "Standard is better than better." And then say, > "Every programmer should strive to write portable code." But to do Why do you think I use Ada95 :-) By the way there is a shell called bush which can be interesting (at least for scripting) : http://www.pegasoft.ca/bush.html Preben -- "When Roman engineers built a bridge, they had to stand under it while the first legion marched across. If programmers today worked under similar ground rules, they might well find themselves getting much more interested in Ada!" -- Robert Dewar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
