Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.org.usrgroup Subject: Re: POSIX Update: Shell and Utilities. Keywords: Draft 9 shell meta standard shell Message-ID: Date: 1 Mar 90 17:23:11 GMT References: <2567@mbf.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 35 [Time for a mvgroup to comp.org.uniforum? :->] > I am not sure what all those !'s mean. Oh, it's a convention I picked up somewhere to represent "quoted program text". > But in re-reading the > first (included) paragraph, my guess is that I should refer you back > to Draft 8. Page 128, beginning with line 1063, ... Where can I get these drafts? > Korn's data showed that a new, quoting syntax, ala > [[ ]], would be less prone to programming error, and it could be made to > have a richer set of tests. Unfortunately, the quoting itself is a > problem for standardization. (see my postscript.) Good idea, and I can see why they would want to use [[ ]] instead of [ ] for that... nothing worse than a silent change. If that's the case then I guess that answers my question. [ ] isn't necessarily going away, it's just not relevent to this point. > I just hope that I was able to shed some light on the subject. Yes Thanks. > By the way, tell me what is this "white paper!" POSIX Update: Shell and Utilities/An Update on the IEEE P1003.2/Shell and Utilities/Working Group//December 1989//by/Hal Jespersen. I like the $[expr] syntax, by the way. Is there any interest in adding the korn shell $(command) syntax as a (nestable) synonym for grave accents? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'