peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (11/20/89)
Two suggestions for ash: Would it be horribly difficult to change the syntax from: run $(which variable) command to: run `which variable` command (or even `which variable` command & ) pretty please? The closer to the real UNIX shell the better. And: In article <13920012@hpfelg.HP.COM> you write: > If this is really a Lattice bug (unless somebody sees something here I > don't), I can't make getenv and export work right until it is fixed. > (I've tried malloc()ing the string passed to putenv(), which doesn't help > at all). Why not avoid putenv/getenv altogether and just read and write "env:name"? -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I am the ghost of aquariums past" -- Robotman.
sft@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (scott.thompson) (11/21/89)
In article <4573@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: |Two suggestions for ash: | | Would it be horribly difficult to change the syntax from: | run $(which variable) command | to: | run `which variable` command | (or even | `which variable` command & | | ) pretty please? The closer to the real UNIX shell the better. | Both are real unix! $(prog) is valid ksh syntax! -- Scott Thompson, 45261, (IH 6W-207), AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il. 60566 VOICE: (312)-979-2237 UUCP: ...!att!ihlpa!sft ARPA: sft@ihlpa.att.com
mwm@gypsum.berkeley.edu (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) (11/22/89)
In article <4926@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> sft@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (scott.thompson,ihp,) writes: <In article <4573@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: <|[wants `prog` instead of $(prog) <Both are real unix! $(prog) is valid ksh syntax! My copy of the ksh man page even lists `` as "archaic", which I read as meaning it is slated for future deletion. Of course, the interesting question is whether or not the (prog) form is supported. Shouldn't be any harder than | in the AmigaDOS environment. <mike -- Kiss me with your mouth. Mike Meyer Your love is better than wine. mwm@berkeley.edu But wine is all I have. ucbvax!mwm Will your love ever be mine? mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
mwm@gypsum.berkeley.edu (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) (11/22/89)
In article <4926@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> sft@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (scott.thompson,ihp,) writes: <In article <4573@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: <|[wants `prog` instead of $(prog) <Both are real unix! $(prog) is valid ksh syntax! My copy of the ksh man page even lists `` as "archaic", which I read as meaning it is slated for future deletion. Of course, the interesting question is whether or not the (prog) form is supported. Shouldn't be any harder than | in the AmigaDOS environment. <mike -- Cats will be cats and cats will be cool Mike Meyer Cats can be callous and cats can be cruel mwm@berkeley.edu Cats will be cats, remember this words! ucbvax!mwm Cats will be cats and cats eat birds. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) (11/22/89)
> Two suggestions for ash: > Would it be horribly difficult to change the syntax from: > run $(which variable) command > to: > run `which variable` command That has been in there since the beginning. Try it; it works. However, SKsh (the new name) and ksh both recommend the $( ) syntax, for a few reasons: 1) Its easier to nest, since you don't have to backslash escape the inner backticks. ie: `command1 \`command2 \` ` vs $(command1 $(command2 )) 2) In SKsh, the backtick notation is limited to the length of an SKsh token (currently 1023 characters). There is no such limitation for the $( ) syntax. Anyhow, I included the backtick style substition for compatibility with the old bourne sh syntax. - steve (koren@hpfela.HP.COM) PS - I have replied to *all* mail I've gotten about SKsh, but I have around a dozen replies which bounced. My appologies to those people; if you sent me mail and didn't get a reply, that's what happened.