Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 08:31:48 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD-current users) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Subject: Re: Anyone mind if I remove the following braindamage from test(1)? Message-ID: <199609020631.IAA22016@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <13843.841630272@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Sep 1, 96 07:11:12 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> root@time-> [ -d /tmp ] && echo Yup, its a directory
> Yup, its a directory
> root@time-> [ -d ] && echo Yup, its a directory
> Yup, its a directory
No:
j@uriah 651% [ -d ] && echo Yup, -d aint empty.
Yup, -d aint empty.
That's apparently the reasoning behind.
> Is there any POSIX weirdness which
> mandates that test not do proper argument checking?
The algorithm for determining the precedence of the operators and the 1
return value that shall be generated is based on the number of arguments 1
presented to test. (However, when using the [...] form, the right- 1
bracket final argument shall not be counted in this algorithm.) In the 1
following list, $1, $2, $3, and $4 represent the arguments presented to 1
test. 1
0 arguments: 1
Exit false (1). 1
1 argument: 1
Exit true (0) if $1 is not null; otherwise, exit false. 1
...
So unless this has been changed again in the standard (the above is
from a draft), leave it as it is.
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609020631.IAA22016>