Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Bourne shell modifications, past and future (long)
Message-ID: <3328@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 17-Nov-85 19:44:58 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3328
Posted: Sun Nov 17 19:44:58 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Nov-85 07:51:04 EST
References: <1943@gatech.CSNET> <10@druri.UUCP> <21@pixdoc.UUCP> <3@bbncc5.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 10
Xref: watmath net.unix:6269 net.unix-wizards:15757

> I think the most glaring difference between csh aliasing and
> sys5 bourne shell functions is that the latter looks up builtins first.
> This means you can't define functions that clash with shell commands.
> On the other hand shell functions have a MUCH better syntax. Why not
> move up the expansion of shell functions ahead of builtins at
> the expense of not having recursive functions.

Very good question.  My guess is that either (a) it was easier
to do it the other way, or (b) it would be considered a security
problem in restricted shells.  Can DGK tell us why?