On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:17:49PM +1200, Tim Wright wrote:
Tim,
> <rant>
Presumably this is directed at me.
While we're all having a little rant, can you please stop switching
randomly between 'deprecate' and 'depreciate'? If you're trying to be
pedantic about definitions, you could at least stick to one word.
> OK, things do not get deprecated by common sense. Things get
Rubbish. Go read a dictionary.
> deprecated by the makers of a software program or by standard
> maintainers, neither of which you are for Bash or POSIX. Something
I never claimed I was. If I had, I could understand this rather extreme
reaction.
> being depreciated is quite a major step and means that it probably
> won't be supported in future versions.
If it is considered deprecated by the author of the standard or
implementation.
> Otherwise you waste my fucking time trying to figure out why things
> have been deprecated when, in fact, they haven't --- it's only a chip
I never claimed that POSIX, SUS, or any of the shell implementations
state that the feature in question is marked as deprecated.
> on your shoulder. You almost just got put in my block list --- and in
> fact you would be if I could be arsed creating a block list.
Your little rant is a rather extreme reaction to what appears to me to
be a misunderstanding.
The backticks command substitution operator (``) is still part of the
current POSIX/SUS standards, and is still part of many shell
implementations. I personally consider the backticks operator to be
deprecated in favour of the $() operator, so I recommend use of the more
capable operator where it makes sense to do so.
Cheers,
-mjg
--
Matthew Gregan |/
/| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
