Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:31:57PM +1059, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > i hate to harp on about it, but:
> >
> > in case you happen to discover the `command' command,
> > beware that its description in sh(1) is wrong.
> >
> > sh(1) says:
> > command -vV command
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:31:57PM +1059, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> i hate to harp on about it, but:
>
> in case you happen to discover the `command' command,
> beware that its description in sh(1) is wrong.
>
> sh(1) says:
> command -vV command args ...
>
actually openbsd's sh(1)
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 19:13 +1100, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > [heres if(3p) for some reason.]
>
> the fact that `man if' goes to a whole man page about a perl thing
> rather than just the sh(1) page, is a bit silly i think.
But you can see that `if` is documented in the 3p category which
> to find out what `command blahcommand' means to sh(1), use
> whereis blahcommand
nope, thats wrong if `type blahcommand' says `builtin'.
> pdksh
i should have said `the korn shell', as ksh93 is just as bad.
> rather than what `command -V' ought to output:
> command echo is /bin/echo
if you look at command(1) after `pkg_add man-pages-posix',
you will see POSIX is largely to blame for this oversight.
some suggested advertising slogans for pdksh:
``hundreds of features--each buggier than the
i hate to harp on about it, but:
in case you happen to discover the `command' command,
beware that its description in sh(1) is wrong.
sh(1) says:
command -vV command args ...
in fact it is:
command -vV command ...
note in particular, that, like `type',
command -V
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:51:36AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Nov 21 01:38:41, rto...@ceti.pl wrote:
> > I guess it would not be very hard to just add few more *roff hacks
>
> Stop right here.
My horses froze hanging in the air... :-)
--
Regards,
Tomasz Rola
--
** A C programmer asked
> [heres if(3p) for some reason.]
the fact that `man if' goes to a whole man page about a perl thing
rather than just the sh(1) page, is a bit silly i think.
i mean, perl isnt the default shell.
why does perl `if' get its own man page, whereas the following are missing:
* `man type' for `man
On Nov 21 01:38:41, rto...@ceti.pl wrote:
> I guess it would not be very hard to just add few more *roff hacks
Stop right here.
Jason McIntyre wrote (2022-11-20 21:45 CET):
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 08:09:13PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 01:32:54PM -, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > > On 2022-11-20, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > >
> > > >> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
>
Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > [what about ssh?]
>
> man(1) should document commands you might from the shell.
Oh, so man(1) should cover *ANY* shell thing.
# man if
if(3p) Perl Programmers Reference Guide if(3p)
NAME
if - "use" a Perl module if a
> am i being punished in the same way as you???
its not me thats being punished...
i would encourage UNIX newbies to read volume 2 of the V7 man
https://s3.amazonaws.com/plan9-bell-labs/7thEdMan/index.html
it has the tutorials and references and all that good stuff.
it lacks the BSD stuff
Forgive me, I don't spend my life using ksh esoterica
But I do use ssh all the time
man AddKeysToAgent
man AddressFamily
man BatchMode
man BindAddress
man CanonicalDomains
man CanonicalizeFallbackLocal
man CanonicalizeHostname
man CanonicalizeMaxDots
man CanonicalizePermittedCNAMEs
man
i feel i ought to repeat myself: you really ought to use:
type [command ...]
some problems with the manual:
* you have to type `man sh'. you cant type `man type'.
* sh(1) does not explain that `tracked alias' in the output of
`type' relates to the output of `hash'. see `hash' in
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 01:38:41AM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote:
[...]
> I guess it would not be very hard to just add few more *roff hacks
> similar to one above. Or maybe a command (shell script) to retrieve
> relevant subsection from manpage and print just this one. And maybe
> also list names of
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 08:45:01PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 08:09:13PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote:
[...]
> > I am writing this from ParrotOS (Debian derivative) and since I am
> > avid user of bash, I can do "man bash-builtins" and it prints me a
> > very nice looking
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 08:09:13PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 01:32:54PM -, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > On 2022-11-20, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> >
> > >> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
> > >
> > > i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 01:32:54PM -, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2022-11-20, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
>
> >> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
> >
> > i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example `man while' for `man sh'?
>
> FreeBSD has a builtin(1) man page that
indivC wrote (2022-11-19 16:13 CET):
> I can't say I understand the technical differences
> between 'type' and which(1).
> However, I will mention these points:
>
> 1. There is no man page for 'type', but there is for which(1)
try ksh(1):
typeShort form of command -V
There is also whence.
Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
> > It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
>
> i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example `man while' for `man sh'?
I rather doubt that, and this is not 4.3BSD
On 2022-11-20, Reuben mac Saoidhea wrote:
>> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
>
> i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example `man while' for `man sh'?
FreeBSD has a builtin(1) man page that attempts to list the csh(1)
and sh(1) builtins and points to the respective man pages:
> It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
i think the 4.3BSD manual allowed for example `man while' for `man sh'?
indivC wrote:
> I can't say I understand the technical differences
> between 'type' and which(1).
> However, I will mention these points:
>
> 1. There is no man page for 'type', but there is for which(1)
It is a builtin, so it is documented inside ksh.
I can't say I understand the technical differences
between 'type' and which(1).
However, I will mention these points:
1. There is no man page for 'type', but there is for which(1)
2. There also appears to be whereis(1). However, I can't speak
to the differences between this command and
you really ought to use `type', not `which',
in case it is a shell function etc.
"Richard Ulmer" wrote:
> Hi all,
> I find this behaviour unexpected:
>
> $ printf foo | less --no-init | xxd
> : 666f 6f1b 5b41 1b5b 4b foo.[A.[K
>
> less prints ANSI escape codes for 'cursor up' and 'erase in line' at the
> end of my message. Interestingly, when doing
"Richard Ulmer":
> I find this behaviour unexpected:
>
> $ printf foo | less --no-init | xxd
> : 666f 6f1b 5b41 1b5b 4b foo.[A.[K
>
> less prints ANSI escape codes for 'cursor up' and 'erase in line' at the
> end of my message.
I cannot reproduce this.
$ printf foo |
Hi all,
I find this behaviour unexpected:
$ printf foo | less --no-init | xxd
: 666f 6f1b 5b41 1b5b 4b foo.[A.[K
less prints ANSI escape codes for 'cursor up' and 'erase in line' at the
end of my message. Interestingly, when doing the same within tmux, the
result is
28 matches
Mail list logo
