Steve Kostecke wrote: > > Richard didn't recognise HTML entities. > > You're moaning about a meaningless typo. >
Unruh's decode of the broken email was correct. What is being shown is not just the command, but the command and the prompt, or at least hopefully that is the case (the questioner could have seen documentation with that intent and actually typed the whole thing at the shell prompt). I realised that the & g t ;, etc. was the result of broken HTML email software, but trying to decode it in my head I sawe a redirect operator for the first > and decided I didn't understand what was going on. Only when I saw Unruh's decode was it obvious that it was actually part of the prompt. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
