From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 12 4:37:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from isbalham.ist.co.uk (isbalham.ist.co.uk [192.31.26.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99BB314E5B for ; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 04:37:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: from gid.co.uk (uucp@localhost) by isbalham.ist.co.uk (8.9.2/8.8.7) with UUCP id MAA16954; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:35:33 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from rb@gid.co.uk) Received: from [194.32.164.2] by seagoon.gid.co.uk; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:26:43 +0100 (BST) X-Sender: rb@194.32.164.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19990812040148.A13484@gelatinous.com> References: <37B2917A.6CBBC950@cdsec.com>; from Graham Wheeler on Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:18:50AM +0200 <37B2917A.6CBBC950@cdsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:26:41 +0000 To: Aaron Smith From: Bob Bishop Subject: Re: New tests for test(1) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, At 4:01 am -0700 12/8/99, Aaron Smith wrote: >this seems undesirable to me, since using it immediately makes your shell >scripts nonportable. i liked the ls -t suggestion though. Further, isn't test a builtin for most (all?) shells? Sounds like a can of worms to me... > >On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:18:50AM +0200, Graham Wheeler wrote: >> thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to test(1), >> to compare files based on criteria like size or modification date? >> >> Anyone else think this is a good idea? -- Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 rb@gid.co.uk fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message