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
Sorry for butting in. Considering that "Desktop" is a valid subdir is it
normal behavior in *any* shell to get:
DrWho:~-> cd Desktop
sh: cd: Desktop: No such file or directory
Which shell behaves like that?
Even if one would argue that CDPATH should not be set in sh, normal
shell behaviour dict
Thanks for the tip. The problem was spending 2 days to find that CDPATH
was the problem. Since then I no longer have a problem. There are many
ways to handle it. I can also start a subshell and unset CDPATH just for
the make.
I am surprised it hasn't come up before.
Nikos Valkanas
Billing Servi
On 10/2/07, Valkanas Nikos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for butting in. Considering that "Desktop" is a valid subdir is it
> normal behavior in *any* shell to get:
>
> DrWho:~-> cd Desktop
> sh: cd: Desktop: No such file or directory
>
> Which shell behaves like that?
Chet Ramey listed some
You are right. I am starting to think that /bin/sh implementation is
correct and bash implementation is too permissive. If I set CDPATH:
export CDPATH=".:~/work:~/work/HOL"
everything will work correctly with all shells, and be much more
analogous to PATH. However, the analogy to PATH should not
(And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still* got
an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one. Is there any
particular reason why you ignored my explicit request to not get both
responses?)
Chet Ramey wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
(And again.)
Bob Proulx wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
> (And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still* got
> an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one.
Even though it is not an official standard the best ad-hoc standard is
to set "Mail-Followup-To: " to instruct mailers where to send followup
me
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
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
dAniel hAhler wrote:
On 2007-07-12 Andreas Schwab wrote:
1. Set PS1="\033[01;37m[ \[\033[01;34m\]\w\[\033[00m\]
\033[01;37m]\n\$\033[00m "
You need to bracket _every_ nonprinting sequence of characters with \[\].
I've asked you before, but you've not answered, or it got lost.
What n
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
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
Bob Proulx wrote:
> I saw that you had set Reply-To: back to the mailing list and I do not
> know why that reply message did not respect your reply-to header.
> For what it is worth I think it should have done so.
I changed it. I've been burned in the past (or at least received
complaints) when
The Wanderer wrote:
>>> I would be interested to find out, if someone is present who does
>>> know. I would also be interested to know the rationale behind the
>>> behaviour, given that the only potentially real-world scenario I
>>> can think of where this behaviour seems as if it would be useful
Valkanas Nikos wrote:
> Sorry for butting in. Considering that "Desktop" is a valid subdir is it
> normal behavior in *any* shell to get:
>
> DrWho:~-> cd Desktop
> sh: cd: Desktop: No such file or directory
>
> Which shell behaves like that?
Ummm...did you read my previous reply? Just about e
Valkanas Nikos wrote:
> Maybe bash should be aligned to the other shells (i.e. no cd to
> a subdir unless "." is part of CDPATH, or CDPATH is not set)
I'm comfortable with the current behavior.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
Live Stro
Bob Proulx wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
(And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still*
got an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one.
Even though it is not an official standard the best ad-hoc standard
is to set "Mail-Followup-To: " to instruct mailers where
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
Hi Chet, others,
In our bash scripts, we often access XML files. Are there any plans to
integrate an XML parser in bash? For example, merge into the main tree the
following bash patch?
http://home.eol.ca/~parkw/index.html#expat
Thank you,
--
Nicholas Sushkin, Senior Software Engineer
www.openfi
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
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
1. Set PS1="\033[01;37m[ \[\033[01;34m\]\w\[\033[00m\]
\033[01;37m]\n\$\033[00m "
>>> You need to bracket _every_ nonprinting sequence of characters with
>>> \[\].
>>
>> I've asked you before, but you've not answered, or it got lost.
>>
>> What nonprinting
21 matches
Mail list logo
