Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!amdahl!JUTS!kpc00 From: kpc00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (kpc) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Cron - First Saturday of the month Message-ID: Date: 10 Aug 90 21:49:09 GMT References: <19744@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <1990Aug8.185745.16606@iwarp.intel.com> <1990Aug8.214539.1264@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <1990Aug9.001850.19494@iwarp.intel.com> <1990Aug10.040654.17334@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <1990Aug10.063819.5253@iwarp.intel.com> Sender: kpc00@ccc.amdahl.com Organization: my-organization Lines: 24 In-reply-to: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com's message of 10 Aug 90 06:38:19 GMT In article <1990Aug10.063819.5253@iwarp.intel.com> merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) writes: So, they really mucked up when they OR-ed in that day-of-week field. Sigh. Sorry. I'll crawl under my rock now. Cron's only for the heavyweights, anyway. Because it's job security through obscurity :-)? Your posting was good. One might hope that HLL boolean expressions were at least considered in the design of cron. (I hope that this offends nobody. In particular, I hope that the designer of cron is not reading this or is not offended -- it really is a wonderful tool, but why was APL-minus-minus chosen as the time description language? :-)) For UNIX historians: Was an HLL expression syntax ever considered? (Or was the original machine thought to be too slow for it?) Also, now that the OR is in there, which of merlyn's possibilities was correct? It makes one wonder what things, if any, are not possible in cron without putting something in the command to be executed. -- Neither representing any company nor, necessarily, myself.