Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ides.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akguc!codas!bsdpkh!ides!doug
From: doug@ides.UUCP (Douglas J. Wait)
Newsgroups: net.jokes
Subject: Re: True and False (Gimme a break!) :-)
Message-ID: <145@ides.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 13:06:32 EST
Article-I.D.: ides.145
Posted: Tue Nov 26 13:06:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 07:44:54 EST
References: <28500049@ISM780B.UUCP> <591@ttrdc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-IS (CSD), Orlando Fl.
Lines: 40

> In article <28500049@ISM780B.UUCP>, tim@ISM780B.UUCP writes:
> >Anyone at AT&T care to explain why "true" is up to version 1.4 and
> >"false" is at version 1.3?  Did 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 ( for "true" )
> >have bugs, and if so, what were they?
> 
> Me, too.  I wanna know!!!!!
> 
> Maybe the version numbers are when the scripts where FIRST implemented?
> I can't see a "true" or a "false" breaking.  For that matter, why not
> implement "true" and "false" as executables? Ya know,

Break... (didn't that discussion already hit the net :-))

I think this calls for a new newsgroup !!

net.versions

net.versions.true		Discussion of shell versions of /bin/true
net.versions.false		Discussion of shell versions of /bin/false
net.versions.true.executables	Discussion of executable versions of /bin/true
net.versions.false.executables	Discussion of executable versions of /bin/false
:-)


Would an executable true/false REALlllly be FASSSSSTER?
And what about trade offs between speed and disk space?
:-)


DISCLAIMER:	These totally dimented (sp) opinions (or whatever you want to
		call them) are totally my own.  And should NOT be credited (?)
		to MY EMPLOYER, Friends, associates, or DOG.  Thanks for
		paying no attention to this....

-- 

			Doug Wait
			..!{akgua,ihnp4,abcom}!ides!doug

			"Is anyBODY OUT there..."