Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!stowe.cs.washington.edu!pauld
From: pauld@stowe.cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: Bourne shell functions
Message-ID: <1991Jun21.222036.7204@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 21 Jun 91 22:20:36 GMT
References: <4973@meaddata.meaddata.com>
Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 22

In article <4973@meaddata.meaddata.com> rob@pmserv.meaddata.com writes:
>
>I'm looking for comments/suggestions/flames concerning the following:
>
>One of our systems is a Sequent computer running DYNIX V3.0.17.v3.
>(DYNIX is strange in itself, in that it has completely separate
>AT&T and UCB universes, both of which IMHO seem incomplete.)  Anyway,
>in trying to write part of a simple Bourne shell script, I found that
>their shell doesn't support functions and I came up with a work-around.
>
>  [ example deleted ]
>
>The simple examples I've tried all seem to work, and I can't come up
>with a scenario in which won't work.
>
>Comments? / Suggestions? / Problems?
 
If you use /usr/att/bin/sh, you won't need the workaround. Why Sequent
had to supply 2 shells, one of which lacks a completely independent
piece of the other, is beyond me. But it works - I use it any time I
need a Bourne shell rather than bash, and I *only* work in the BSD
universe.