Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!houxm!houxa!grs
From: grs@houxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: KSH alias question
Message-ID: <358@houxa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Mar-87 08:56:32 EST
Article-I.D.: houxa.358
Posted: Fri Mar 27 08:56:32 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Mar-87 13:54:05 EST
References: <302@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 27
Summary: Why not just alias print to the print cmd?

In article <302@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU>, dave@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU (Dave Bloom) writes:
> Here's a question for all you ksh wizards out there: (Are you listening
> Mr. Korn???)
> 
> Unfortunately, ksh uses the word 'print' for the ksh builtin equivalent
> of echo(1). My problem: we have a utility called print on the system
> whose name can't be changed for political reasons. What I'd like to do
> is somehow change the name of the builtin WITHOUT recompiling the code
> so that 'print' will refer to the utility, and so that 'echo' can still
> be aliased to use the ksh print builtin.
>
I tried a little experiment here.  I created a shell script called print.
cat >print >>!
echo "Hello world"
!

Then I aliased print to the new command:
alias print=$HOME/print

Everything worked as expected.  Although its clumsy, you could simple have
ksh users alias print to your print command, and use the echo command (aliased
as print -) instead of print.

On the other hand, this may be a dumb idea.

		Glenn Sills