Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site mirror.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!mirror!rs
From: rs@mirror.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Re: In sh, is '[' a portable synonym
Message-ID: <13400016@mirror.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 13:37:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: mirror.13400016
Posted: Fri Oct 18 13:37:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 06:01:03 EDT
References: <313@bdaemon.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:bdaemon:-31300:mirror:13400016:000:880
Nf-From: mirror!rs    Oct 18 13:37:00 1985


/* Written 10:57 am  Oct 15, 1985 by carl@bdaemon in mirror:net.unix-wizar */
/* ---------- "Re: In sh, is '[' a portable synony" ---------- */
> > 
> > 	On my 4.2bsd system, the following do the same thing in sh because
> > /bin/[ is a link to /bin/test. ... Is the "[]" form safe to use if you want
> > ....
> 
> V7 systems where /bin/[ isn't a link to /bin/test.  Any V7 or post-V7 system
> can be made to support "if [ <condition> ]" as equivalent to "if test
> .....
> 	GUy Harris

I have absolutely no arguments with Guy's message, but would like to point
out that the [ condition ] construct saves only one keystroke at the
expense of readability.  E.g.:

	if test -f "$1"	<= 15 keystrokes + <CR>
vs.
	if [ -f "$1" ]	<= 14 keystrokes + <CR>

Which is more readable? Note that the spaces around [] are MANDATORY.

Carl Brandauer
/* End of text from mirror:net.unix-wizar */