Les Mikesell wrote:
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
The exact words you quoted above state "Unix-like operating
systems".
not a unix-like shell behavior. At least not one that is
anything like the default (bourne) shell since 1977 or so.
[snip]
I didn't see the words "unix-like shell behavior" in what
you just quoted, so I didn't respond to those words. I did
repond to the words I saw used.
I see no reason not to exercise caution in raising expectations
in people's minds about the behavior of software across multiple
platforms in unspecified circumstances.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
