mcdaniel@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/16/85)
Written 12:25 am Nov 15, 1985 by levy@ttrdc.UUCP in uiucdcsb:net.unix: > In article <10@druri.UUCP>, clive@druri.UUCP (StewardCN) writes: >> Out of curiosity, just why don't you want to put in command aliasing? >> It's one of the most useful features in csh and ksh, I think. >> Clive > Maybe it's because the Bourne shell now supports shell functions? Maybe YOUR Bourne shell supports shell functions. Our 4.2 /bin/sh does not. Would it be difficult to add? (Never having seen such beasts, I have no idea how hard it would be.)
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (11/18/85)
In article <19300051@uiucdcsb>, mcdaniel@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >Written 12:25 am Nov 15, 1985 by levy@ttrdc.UUCP in uiucdcsb:net.unix: >> In article <10@druri.UUCP>, clive@druri.UUCP (StewardCN) writes: >>> Out of curiosity, just why don't you want to put in command aliasing? >>> It's one of the most useful features in csh and ksh, I think. >>> Clive > >> Maybe it's because the Bourne shell now supports shell functions? > >Maybe YOUR Bourne shell supports shell functions. Our 4.2 /bin/sh >does not. Would it be difficult to add? (Never having seen such >beasts, I have no idea how hard it would be.) I meant the already-improved version of the Bourne shell which was being discussed. (Shell functions are originally from SysV.) Flame away if I be mistaken. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy