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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Bourne shell modifications, past an
Message-ID: <582@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Nov-85 21:35:42 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.582
Posted: Sun Nov 17 21:35:42 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Nov-85 04:09:44 EST
References: <1943@gatech.CSNET> <19300051@uiucdcsb>
Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL
Lines: 23

In article <19300051@uiucdcsb>, mcdaniel@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>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.)

I meant the already-improved version of the Bourne shell which was being
discussed.  (Shell functions are originally from SysV.)  Flame away if I
be mistaken.
-- 
 -------------------------------    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