tim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/15/85)
Anyone at AT&T care to explain why "true" is up to version 1.4 and "false" is at version 1.3? Did 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 ( for "true" ) have bugs, and if so, what were they?
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (11/20/85)
In article <28500049@ISM780B.UUCP>, tim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >Anyone at AT&T care to explain why "true" is up to version 1.4 and >"false" is at version 1.3? Did 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 ( for "true" ) >have bugs, and if so, what were they? Me, too. I wanna know!!!!! Maybe the version numbers are when the scripts where FIRST implemented? I can't see a "true" or a "false" breaking. For that matter, why not implement "true" and "false" as executables? Ya know, /* true.c */ main(argc,argv) int argc; char **argv; /* Is this necessary? (To include argv if only argc wanted) */ { if (argc > 1) write(2,"Usage: true\n",12); return 0; } /* false.c */ main(argc,argv) int argc; char **argv; { if (argc > 1) write(2,"Usage: false\n",13); return 255; } It would be faster :-). -- ------------------------------- 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
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (11/20/85)
They may have them under RCS or SCCS or some other system where version
number for a whole bunch of software can be updated simultaneously.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or
915 Patterson Office Tower {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
Lexington, Ky. 40506-0027 BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNETaegl@root44.UUCP (Tony Luck) (11/21/85)
I only have version 1.3 of /bin/true ... but I can't see any bugs in it. Altogether it is 747 bytes long - most of this is the "THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETRY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T ..." heading - followed by the version number followed by the actual code to do nothing (successfully) - which is of course nothing as the shell will just "exit(0)" when it reaches end of file. On Version 6 true just used to be an empty file - presumably this was the base version. - Then someone must have added a version number (probably 1.1 - but maybe 1.2) then the copyright notice must have been added (up to 1.3) - perhaps there is a a typo in this notice - or perhaps the Lawyers decided that a mere 747 bytes wasn't enough of a warning to potential software pirates and have added dire threats and warnings of what will happen to anyone who would dare to copy such a complex utility! Tony Luck mcvax!ukc!root44!aegl