Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: True and False (Gimme a break!) :-)
Message-ID: <591@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 19:44:40 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.591
Posted: Tue Nov 19 19:44:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Nov-85 08:35:41 EST
References: <28500049@ISM780B.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL
Lines: 37

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,

/* true.c */
main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char **argv;	/* Is this necessary? (To include argv if only argc wanted) */
{
	if (argc > 1) write(2,"Usage: true\n",12);
	return 0;
}

/* false.c */
main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char **argv;
{
	if (argc > 1) write(2,"Usage: false\n",13);
	return 255;
}

It would be faster :-).
-- 
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy