Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:56:22 +0200 From: "Sijmen J. Mulder" <ik@sjmulder.nl> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A request to segregate man pages for shell built-ins Message-ID: <57bd52d4-bf61-454f-1b11-d7f96aa1c049@sjmulder.nl> In-Reply-To: <f88bce52-b120-c9cf-05bf-3c99ab99c522@FreeBSD.org> References: <VI1PR02MB1200817E0E2CDD2A2A42E1A5F6440@VI1PR02MB1200.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <f88cd63e-3cbc-4463-5219-99d204742b85@FreeBSD.org> <6f62db58-8220-0fe4-133b-410da2f58579@qeng-ho.org> <f88bce52-b120-c9cf-05bf-3c99ab99c522@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Whilst I do appreciate builtin(1)'s comprehensiveness I too find it hard to nagivate. Op 25-10-2017 om 10:10 schreef Matthew Seaman: > In the case of eg. echo(1), I'd be happy to see the existing page for > the stand-alone echo refactored to cover all of the different flavours > of echo -- the behaviour is much the same in most use cases -- plus some > discussion on how the variants differ. This seems like a good solution. But, how would shells in ports deal with this? A builtin(1)-like foosh(1), or foosh_echo(1), foosh_case(1), etc? Sijmen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?57bd52d4-bf61-454f-1b11-d7f96aa1c049>