Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 22:50:38 +0100 From: Wolfram Schneider <wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de> To: scott@statsci.com, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: perl4 Message-ID: <199603212150.WAA00319@campa.panke.de> In-Reply-To: Scott Blachowicz's message of Wed, 20 Mar 1996 11:24:52 -0800
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
3In article <m0tzTV8-000r3sC@main.statsci.com> Scott Blachowicz <scott@statsci.com> writes: >> > By the way, which is inherantly broken when executed as any sort of >> > script. It needs to be a shell builtin or it needs to die. >I think the point was more that if you define the purpose of 'which' to be >"tell me what would be run if I use this command", then it has to be a >shell builtin in order to find shell-local functions and aliases. Sometimes you need a non-interactive which(1). FreeBSD use which in bsd.port.mk. Not all shells have a builtin 'which' or the shells use an other name for which (bash -> type). Our programs should not depend on non-standardized shell builtins. Wolfram
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603212150.WAA00319>