Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihuxb!wfmans
From: wfmans@ihuxb.UUCP (w. mansfield)
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.unix
Subject: Re: nonsense words for files
Message-ID: <1025@ihuxb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-May-85 18:05:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxb.1025
Posted: Mon May 20 18:05:42 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 21-May-85 07:12:16 EDT
References: <1936@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1940@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1017@ihuxb.UUCP> <196@azure.UUCP> <1664@ittvax.UUCP> <2191@sun.uucp>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 40
Xref: watmath net.nlang:3094 net.unix:4572

> > > On what UNIX systems (or what shells) is test part of the shell?  On
> > > every system (and shell) I've used, it's in /bin/test.
> 
> > 	/bin/test will probably always be there but in the SysV R2 Bourne
> > 	shell 'test' is a builtin.
> 
> It's a builtin in System III and System V (release 1 and 2).  It probably
> was a builtin in UNIX/TS 1.0 and PWB/UNIX 2.0 (the predecessors to System
> III).  System V doesn't have "/bin/test" because it doesn't need it.  There
> is also a stub of code in the V7 shell (which is the 4.xBSD shell as well)
> to have "test" be a builtin under the name "[".  In the TS 1.0/PWB 2.0/S3/S5
> shell, it's builtin under the name "[" as well as "test".  Furthermore, if
> you do
> 
> 	ln /bin/test /bin/[
> 
> under V7, you can call it "[" as well; 4.xBSD comes with this already done.
> That way, you can write
> 
> 	if [ -f /etc/foo ]
> 
> instead of
> 
> 	if test -f /etc/foo
> 
> which, arguably, looks cleaner.
> 
> Building it into the shell makes scripts which do lots of "test"s run much
> faster.
> 
> 	Guy Harris

AIIIIIIEEEEE!  I'm sorry I started a UNIX dialogue in net.nlang.
If there's interest, let's move the discussion to net.unix only,
and leave the language au natural folks alone.
-- 

	Bill Mansfield
	AT&T Information Systems, Naperville, IL
	{ihnp4!}ihuxb!wfmans