From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed Mar 15 11:14: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from axl.ops.uunet.co.za (axl.ops.uunet.co.za [196.31.1.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA98737BA1E for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:14:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.ops.uunet.co.za) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.ops.uunet.co.za) by axl.ops.uunet.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 12VJEj-000F66-00; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:13:41 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Matthew Hunt Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, Ayan George Subject: Re: bin/17395: bin In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:28:24 PST." <20000315102824.B40338@wopr.caltech.edu> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:13:41 +0200 Message-ID: <58037.953147621@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:28:24 PST, Matthew Hunt wrote: > 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. Okay, that makes sense. > 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? Not that I can think of, no. I'll take a look. Just so that I don't misundersand _again_, any testing I do should show this version of which doing exactly what the csh(1) builtin which does, yes? Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message