>>This is "much more code":
>>
>> F(){ find "$@"; }
>>
> This simple func definition will be 4 lines in my coding style. :) And I
> like adding at least one blank line between functions.
Then just exclude .bashrc from your coding style.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Clark J. Wang wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Marc Herbert
>> wrote:
>>
>> Le 04/08/2010 15:29, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
>>>
I do not agree. Aliases are much simpler to use than functions.
>>>
>>
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Clark J. Wang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Marc Herbert wrote:
Le 04/08/2010 15:29, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
I do not agree. Aliases are much simpler to use than functions.
Please provide examples.
The following is a part of my aliases. I'll have to write much
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Marc Herbert wrote:
> Le 04/08/2010 15:29, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
> > I do not agree. Aliases are much simpler to use than functions.
>
> Please provide examples.
>
> The following is a part of my aliases. I'll have to write much more code if
I define them all as
Le 04/08/2010 15:29, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
> I do not agree. Aliases are much simpler to use than functions.
Please provide examples.
On 8/4/10 10:38 AM, Clark J. Wang wrote:
> Function definitions are not simple commands. Actually, func definition
> syntax is listed under the *Compound Commands* section in bash2.05b's man
> page and in bash3+ it's been moved to a separate section.
While technically true, that doesn't enter int
Am 04.08.2010 16:38, schrieb Clark J. Wang:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bernd Eggink wrote:
Am 04.08.2010 12:39, schrieb Clark J. Wang:
I was testing the precedence between functions and aliases so I tried like
this (with bash 4.1.5):
$ cat rc
alias foo='echo this is the alias'
foo()
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bernd Eggink wrote:
> Am 04.08.2010 12:39, schrieb Clark J. Wang:
>
> I was testing the precedence between functions and aliases so I tried like
>> this (with bash 4.1.5):
>>
>> $ cat rc
>> alias foo='echo this is the alias'
>>
>> foo()
>> {
>> builtin echo 't
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Marc Herbert wrote:
> Le 04/08/2010 11:39, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
>
> > Seems like I must explicitly use the `function' keyword to define foo()
> for
> > this scenario. Is that the correct behavior?
>
> The correct behaviour is simply not to use aliases, since the
Am 04.08.2010 15:13, schrieb Eric Blake:
On 08/04/2010 05:03 AM, Marc Herbert wrote:
Le 04/08/2010 11:39, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
Seems like I must explicitly use the `function' keyword to define foo() for
this scenario. Is that the correct behavior?
The correct behaviour is simply not to us
On 08/04/2010 05:03 AM, Marc Herbert wrote:
> Le 04/08/2010 11:39, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
>
>> Seems like I must explicitly use the `function' keyword to define foo() for
>> this scenario. Is that the correct behavior?
>
> The correct behaviour is simply not to use aliases, since they bring noth
Am 04.08.2010 12:39, schrieb Clark J. Wang:
I was testing the precedence between functions and aliases so I tried like
this (with bash 4.1.5):
$ cat rc
alias foo='echo this is the alias'
foo()
{
builtin echo 'this is the function'
}
foo
$ source rc
bash: confusing-aliases-2.sh: line 4: sy
Le 04/08/2010 11:39, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
> Seems like I must explicitly use the `function' keyword to define foo() for
> this scenario. Is that the correct behavior?
The correct behaviour is simply not to use aliases, since they bring nothing
to the table compared to functions. Have a look at
13 matches
Mail list logo
