On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 02:28:00PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Lest some think functions can replace aliases, there's a line in the manpage
that I feel needs amending. Currently it says:
"For almost every purpose, aliases are superseded by shell functions."
While true, it may too likely be read by some to mean that aliases have no
useful purpose. So I'd suggest:
"For most purposes, aliases are superseded by shell functions, though
aliases are still required in some situations".
The latter seems even more trickier to read then the previous.
I would suggest scrapping both attempts at clarifications and state one (maybe
two) solid pros for each and then a con for each. Or something of a mix within
one sentence for the sake of brevity?
I've seen & worked with both and in my opinion:
---
Aliases are really meant for CLI or bashrc usage and can be quickly written.
Aliases seem to have some limitations as to what statements they may contain
as it's a one-liner.
Functions can easily contain more complicated statements, and can also be
contained within bashrc, and utilized via CLI -- but really are used within
scripts.
As far as system resources, I've heard functions are quicker. But I don't know
if this is accurate as functions usually contain more execution statements!
---