Donnie Berkholz posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Sat, 05 Feb 2005 00:32:33 -0800:
> Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > | Hence why I think that is more appropriate. We shouldn't remove the > | symlink if it has a target. > > I'm glad the test man page is so eminently clear on that. "test" manpage?? We /are/ talking about BASH scripting here, right?? If so, "test" is a bash built-in, so the "test" manpage won't be of any but general/hopefully-compatible help, since it's dealing with the "test" executable, not the "test" bash builtin. For the "test" bash built-in, check the (unfortunately too large to be easily manageable) bash manpage (altho it isn't any better in this case, look under conditional expressions). Of course, the builtin and the standalone versions of test serve the same function and are generally compatible, but it's still not the best idea to rely on documentation of the one to serve for the other, on general principles. However, symlink "exists" testing vs file exists testing is a distinction I wasn't aware of either. Thanks, Jeremy, one more knowledge hole "eradicated"! -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- [email protected] mailing list
