Re: Function visibility

2007-10-02 Thread Bob Proulx
Stephane Chazelas wrote: > Note however that it's no longer true of ksh93 and ... > Note that #! /bin/sh will not always give you a POSIX shell. Note that #!/bin/ksh won't always give you a ksh93 shell either. At least one system (*cough*HP-UX*cough*) still ships ksh88 there. Bob

Re: Function visibility

2007-10-02 Thread Matthew Woehlke
Stephane Chazelas wrote: Note that #! /bin/sh will not always give you a POSIX shell. Sometimes, it may give you an ancient shell that your Unix vendor keeps there for backward compatibility. THANK YOU! It's nice to know I'm not the only one laboring under wrong the notion that /bin/sh is alwa

Re: Function visibility

2007-10-02 Thread Stephane Chazelas
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:43:05PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: [...] > The AT&T ksh uses $ENV for the same purpose but does not automatically > source a kshrc file. Therefore a very common configuration for the > typical user in their profile is to set ENV=$HOME/.kshrc and use it > for all of the sam

Re: Function visibility

2007-10-02 Thread Bob Proulx
Stephane Chazelas wrote: > However note that the file pointed to by the BASH_ENV > environment variable is sourced even by non-interactive shells And while that feature can be useful it can also break working scripts. Therefore I try to ignore that this feature exists and hope that no one (ab)use

Re: Function visibility

2007-10-02 Thread Stephane Chazelas
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:57:16AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Stephane Chazelas wrote: > > To work around that, you have to do things like this in > > /etc/profile: > > ... > > And do something similar in your ~/.profile for your ~/.bashrc. > > While that is normal to do to configure interactive s

Re: Function visibility

2007-10-02 Thread Bob Proulx
Stephane Chazelas wrote: > To work around that, you have to do things like this in > /etc/profile: > ... > And do something similar in your ~/.profile for your ~/.bashrc. While that is normal to do to configure interactive sessions the original question was where should shell functions be placed f

Re: Function visibility

2007-10-02 Thread Stephane Chazelas
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 04:43:15PM -0700, retiredff wrote: > > I have several functions in my /etc/profile (Mac OSX 10.4.9). I can use the > functions at the commandline, however inside of scripts I receive an error. > I'll use an example of a function I have called cecho that echo's a string > in

Re: Function visibility

2007-10-01 Thread retiredff
port function-name? that would only help when you executed the script from a shell which sourced the /etc/profile and not if it were run through say a cronjob -mike Thanks mike. It's been awhile since I programmed in Bash. I remember now...... -- View this message in context: http://

Re: Function visibility

2007-10-01 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 01 October 2007, retiredff wrote: > I have several functions in my /etc/profile (Mac OSX 10.4.9). I can use the > functions at the commandline, however inside of scripts I receive an error. > I'll use an example of a function I have called cecho that echo's a string > in a color that is p

Function visibility

2007-10-01 Thread retiredff
on-name? TIA TonyB -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Function-visibility-tf4551985.html#a12990189 Sent from the Gnu - Bash mailing list archive at Nabble.com.