Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 08:40:33 +0100 From: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A request to segregate man pages for shell built-ins Message-ID: <6f62db58-8220-0fe4-133b-410da2f58579@qeng-ho.org> In-Reply-To: <f88cd63e-3cbc-4463-5219-99d204742b85@FreeBSD.org> References: <VI1PR02MB1200817E0E2CDD2A2A42E1A5F6440@VI1PR02MB1200.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <f88cd63e-3cbc-4463-5219-99d204742b85@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25/10/2017 07:14, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 25/10/2017 03:23, Manish Jain wrote: >> (Note : some built-ins (e.g. 'test') do have their own man pages) > > That's because there's a stand-alone test(1) as well as a shell built-in. > >> Is it not possible to create separate man pages for the shell built-ins >> too ? Or at least ensure that invoking the built-in with --help gets the >> necessary information ? > > I'm sure creating separate man pages is possible: it's just a question > of someone stepping up and doing the work. "man builtin" suggests there might be a few problems in organising the new pages. Some builtins work in both shells, others in only one, some have external equivalents, others don't. Some builtins work differently in the two shells. For example, do we have one page for echo or three: echo(bin), echo(sh) and echo(csh)? /bin/echo has a single flag, the sh builtin has two and the csh builtin mimics one or the other depending on a csh variable setting. Yes, it just needs someone to do the work but making the new pages coherent and clear would take more effort than it first seems. -- An amusing coincidence: log2(58) = 5.858 (to 0.0003% accuracy).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6f62db58-8220-0fe4-133b-410da2f58579>