Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:28:24 -0800 From: Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/17395: bin Message-ID: <20000315102824.B40338@wopr.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <200003151730.JAA57688@freefall.freebsd.org>; from sheldonh@uunet.co.za on Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:30:04AM -0800 References: <200003151730.JAA57688@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:30:04AM -0800, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > >Synopsis: This is a replacement for the perl version of which. > > This was discussed recently on the mailing lists (hackers?) and the > general concensus seemed to be that this is unnecessary? I thought the concensus was that having /usr/bin/which is unnecessary (because it's a csh(1) builtin, and sh-users should use "type") but that if it's going to exist, it might as well be in C or csh (depending on what you think /usr/bin/which ought to do) rather than Perl. Is there some reason that it ought to be done in Perl rather than C, if they do the same thing and the C version is faster? Matt -- Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> * Stay close to the Vorlon. http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000315102824.B40338>