Re: test -t FD vs. [FD]

2003-07-06 Thread Jim Meyering
Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes: Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: POSIX long ago decided that FD is not optional with test -t. GNU 'test' conforms to POSIX in this respect. bash's does, but coreutils' doesn't. Good point. I looked at

Re: test -t FD vs. [FD]

2003-06-30 Thread Paul Eggert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes: Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: POSIX long ago decided that FD is not optional with test -t. GNU 'test' conforms to POSIX in this respect. bash's does, but coreutils' doesn't. Good point. I looked at coreutils/src/test.c and noticed some other

Re: test -t FD vs. [FD]

2003-06-20 Thread Paul Eggert
Dan Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: $ man test -t [FD] file descriptor FD (stdout by default) is opened on a terminal I.e. argument optional $ help test -t FD True if FD is opened on a terminal. Not so optional with bash then. You guys should

test -t FD vs. [FD]

2003-06-18 Thread Dan Jacobson
[remove emacs group when following up] Why does (shell-command test -ttty) get so far to tell me 'not a tty'!? Paul With a single argument, test only tells you whether that arguments is Paul empty. You want test -t 0 (or 1 or 2). $ man test -t [FD] file descriptor FD

Re: test -t FD vs. [FD]

2003-06-18 Thread Paul Jarc
Dan Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul With a single argument, test only tells you whether that arguments is Paul empty. You want test -t 0 (or 1 or 2). $ man test -t [FD] file descriptor FD (stdout by default) is opened on a terminal I.e. argument optional Making