Donnie Berkholz posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:49:36 -0800:
> Duncan wrote: > | > | "test" manpage?? We /are/ talking about BASH scripting here, right?? > > Can you enumerate upon the (many, I'm sure) differences between test and [ > ] in bash? > > If not, please don't act so incredulous. The test man page is a lot easier > to parse and holds the same content, as far as I can tell, as the relevant > section of the bash page. I'd tend to call that a bug in the documentation of both, but let's look at it in terms that should be familiar to most Gentoo devs: If I filed the bug for the test manpage documentation on the bash site, I'd expect to have it closed as RESOLVED-INVALID, and rightly so, IMO, because the test executable isn't bash. That's why it surprised me when I saw the complaint about the wrong one... from a developer who unless I'm mistaken would likely label a bug so filed... invalid. That said, for a quick shortcut lookup, checking the test manpage is quite reasonable. I'd probably be doing that myself if I didn't have Linux in a Nutshell sitting beside me with a bookmark set to the test section of the bash chapter (and no, it doesn't mention it either =8^( that particular behavior was new to me, too) I was just surprised at the use in this context, is all. -- 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
