Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcsb
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!mcdaniel
From: mcdaniel@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Bourne shell modifications, past an
Message-ID: <19300051@uiucdcsb>
Date: Sat, 16-Nov-85 03:02:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.19300051
Posted: Sat Nov 16 03:02:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Nov-85 06:27:26 EST
References: <1943@gatech.CSNET>
Lines: 12
Nf-ID: #R:gatech.CSNET:1943:uiucdcsb:19300051:000:535
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU!mcdaniel    Nov 16 02:02:00 1985


Written 12:25 am  Nov 15, 1985 by levy@ttrdc.UUCP in uiucdcsb:net.unix:
> In article <10@druri.UUCP>, clive@druri.UUCP (StewardCN) writes:
>> Out of curiosity, just why don't you want to put in command aliasing?
>> It's one of the most useful features in csh and ksh, I think.
>> Clive

> Maybe it's because the Bourne shell now supports shell functions?

Maybe YOUR Bourne shell supports shell functions.  Our 4.2 /bin/sh
does not.  Would it be difficult to add?  (Never having seen such
beasts, I have no idea how hard it would be.)