rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (07/25/89)
The "type" command knows about -type and -path. Apparently -n is a synonym for -path. It would be more Unix'y and consistant with declare if we had -t and -p, respectively. The changes in builtins.c type_builtin() are obvious. /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.
bfox@AUREL.CALTECH.EDU (Brian Fox) (07/25/89)
Date: 24 Jul 89 22:05:32 GMT From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation Sender: bug-bash-request@prep.ai.mit.edu The "type" command knows about -type and -path. Apparently -n is a synonym for -path. It would be more Unix'y and consistant with declare if we had -t and -p, respectively. The changes in builtins.c type_builtin() are obvious. /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out. -type and -path are more GNU'y. Isn't that the operating system that this shell is being written for? I wish you people would complain that you can't use completion to type these arguments instead of telling me that the argument names are too descriptive. Brian
brian@radio.astro.utoronto.ca (Brian Glendenning) (07/26/89)
In article <8907251540.AA24308@aurel.caltech.edu> bfox@AUREL.CALTECH.EDU (Brian Fox) writes:
I wish you people would complain that you can't use completion to type
[...]
Well, since you're soliciting wish lists :-) I wish that bash filename
completion would try the elements of CDPATH if it didn't have any luck
starting from the current working directory.
--
Brian Glendenning - Radio astronomy, University of Toronto
brian@radio.astro.utoronto.ca uunet!utai!radio!brian glendenn@utorphys.bitnetmackenzi@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (David MacKenzie) (07/26/89)
In article <8907251540.AA24308@aurel.caltech.edu> bfox@aurel.caltech.edu writes: >-type and -path are more GNU'y. Isn't that the operating system that >this shell is being written for? Judging by the GNU getopt(), '+type' and '+path' are more GNU'y; few GNU programs use multiple-character switch names preceeded by a dash (gcc is one). -- David MacKenzie mackenzi@thor.stolaf.edu or edf@rocky2.rockefeller.edu
andrewt@watsnew.waterloo.edu (Andrew Thomas) (07/27/89)
In article <8907251540.AA24308@aurel.caltech.edu> bfox@aurel.caltech.edu writes: >-type and -path are more GNU'y. Isn't that the operating system that >this shell is being written for? Why shouldn't bash accept both -type and -t? How about having the first character in a multi-character switch act the same as the whole word? This would seem to satisfy everybody. I personally support any addition that reduces the amount of typing I have to do. -- Andrew Thomas andrewt@watsnew.waterloo.edu Systems Design Eng. University of Waterloo "If a million people do a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing." - Opus