On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 14:56, Mike McCarty wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 11:55, Mike McCarty wrote: > > > > > >>>Normally, I'd suggest ./test and expect that to work reliably across > >>>Unix-like operating systems. > >> > >>Possibly. The word "test" is reserved in some shells. > > > > > > It's a built-in, which means only that it is found ahead of a PATH > > search for executables. You can still specify the path to a > > real executable if you want. > > Umm... read what I wrote. It is a built-in for bash. I did not > specify bash. I have used a shell in which "test" is a reserved > word, and could be used only under restricted contexts, and didn't > mean what you probably think it meant. It put the shell into > a "debug mode" of operation. So I'm simply exercising caution > in the "expect it to work reliably across Unix-like operating > systems" part of the quote. I thought we were talking about unix-like shells. That is not a unix-like shell behavior. At least not one that is anything like the default (bourne) shell since 1977 or so. > >>Yes, SCO UNIX is "more nearly" UNIX. > > > > > > There have been very few variations in the bourne shell so I > > wouldn't expect a difference in that respect. If you go back > > far enough you might find one that didn't have test as a > > built-in and would always have run /bin/test or it's '[' link > > as an external program. > > What does this have to do with SCO? Xenix and SCO both used bourne shells. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
