hmm, on Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:42:14AM -0400, Eric Furman said that > [[ is not listed in sh(1) because this construct doesn't exist in sh(1). > There is a difference in the [[ construct in ksh. Read man ksh(1).
right, thanks for the answers. but is it supposed to be listed in sh(1) or not at all? i mean if listed, it could get at least a sentence that it's the same as [ ] or not the same, whatever, no? also, is this posix? becasuse the hp-ux posix-sh(1) (or was it sh-posix(1)?) shell happily processes it... -f -- a fool searches for a greater fool to find admiration.
