Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:13:41 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, Ayan George <ayan@kiwi.datasys.net> Subject: Re: bin/17395: bin Message-ID: <58037.953147621@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:28:24 PST." <20000315102824.B40338@wopr.caltech.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58037.953147621>