rob@meaddata.com (Robert E. Lancia) (06/22/91)
I'm looking for comments/suggestions/flames concerning the following:
One of our systems is a Sequent computer running DYNIX V3.0.17.v3.
(DYNIX is strange in itself, in that it has completely separate
AT&T and UCB universes, both of which IMHO seem incomplete.) Anyway,
in trying to write part of a simple Bourne shell script, I found that
their shell doesn't support functions and I came up with a work-around.
As a trivial example consider a function for clearing the screen,
listing files, and getting confirmation to continue.
#
# normal function declaration my work around declaration
# =========================== ==========================
# list_files () list_files='
# { clear;
# clear echo "Files:";
# echo "Files:" ls $file_dir;
# ls $file_dir echo "Hit <Enter> key";
# echo "Hit <Enter> key" read dummy;
# read dummy '
# }
#
# Invoked as Invoked as
# ========== ==========
# . . . . . .
# list_files eval $list_files
# . . . . . .
#
The simple examples I've tried all seem to work, and I can't come up
with a scenario in which won't work.
Comments? / Suggestions? / Problems?
Rob.
--
|Robert Lancia | The above opinions | Mead Data Central
|(513) 297-2560 | may not necessarily | Data Services Division
|rob@pmserv.meaddata.com | be MDC's. Heck, they | P.O. Box 308
|...!uunet!meaddata!pmserv!rob | may not even be mine. | Dayton, Ohio 45401rob@meaddata.com (Robert E. Lancia) (06/22/91)
Following up to my own article ... In article <4973@meaddata.meaddata.com> I write: > >One of our systems is a Sequent computer running DYNIX V3.0.17.v3. >(DYNIX is strange in itself, in that it has completely separate >AT&T and UCB universes, both of which IMHO seem incomplete.) Anyway, >in trying to write part of a simple Bourne shell script, I found that >their shell doesn't support functions and I came up with a work-around. > [ . . . example deleted . . . ] > >The simple examples I've tried all seem to work, and I can't come up >with a scenario in which [it] won't work. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ... except of course, in dealing with parameters. The work-around I described won't work with parameters (at least, not as given.) Parameters to these "functions" aren't a major concern of mine for this script, though. Other comments, etc? Rob. -- |Robert Lancia | The above opinions | Mead Data Central |(513) 297-2560 | may not necessarily | Data Services Division |rob@pmserv.meaddata.com | be MDC's. Heck, they | P.O. Box 308 |...!uunet!meaddata!pmserv!rob | may not even be mine. | Dayton, Ohio 45401
pauld@stowe.cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) (06/22/91)
In article <4973@meaddata.meaddata.com> rob@pmserv.meaddata.com writes: > >I'm looking for comments/suggestions/flames concerning the following: > >One of our systems is a Sequent computer running DYNIX V3.0.17.v3. >(DYNIX is strange in itself, in that it has completely separate >AT&T and UCB universes, both of which IMHO seem incomplete.) Anyway, >in trying to write part of a simple Bourne shell script, I found that >their shell doesn't support functions and I came up with a work-around. > > [ example deleted ] > >The simple examples I've tried all seem to work, and I can't come up >with a scenario in which won't work. > >Comments? / Suggestions? / Problems? If you use /usr/att/bin/sh, you won't need the workaround. Why Sequent had to supply 2 shells, one of which lacks a completely independent piece of the other, is beyond me. But it works - I use it any time I need a Bourne shell rather than bash, and I *only* work in the BSD universe.