From owner-freebsd-doc Wed Jun 30 13:28: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk [193.237.89.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D2214BDE for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:27:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk) Received: (from nik@localhost) by nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) id UAA71265; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:39:07 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from nik) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:39:05 +0100 From: Nik Clayton To: Jesus Monroy Cc: doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what is the policy for builtin shell functions? Message-ID: <19990630203904.A68144@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> References: <19990629194802.14484.qmail@www0w.netaddress.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: <19990629194802.14484.qmail@www0w.netaddress.usa.net>; from Jesus Monroy on Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 12:48:02PM -0700 Organization: Nik at home, where there's nothing going on Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Jun 29, 1999 at 12:48:02PM -0700, Jesus Monroy wrote: > I've note many builtin functions for csh(1) and sh(1) > have no apropos(1) or whatis(1). > > Especially annoying are 'limit' and 'unlimit'. Couldn't agree more. Please file a PR about this. One that includes patches would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. N -- [intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed, non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs the links. -- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message