Re: extension of file-test primitives?

[Chet Ramey]

On 8/23/17 10:49 AM, dethrophes wrote:
> Well technically I don't *have* to accept the performance penalty.
> 
> As I can just use the posix comform syntax, which is quicker.

Wait, which posix-conforming syntax? Because your original example, which
had five arguments to `test', is explicitly unspecified:

>4 arguments:
    The results are unspecified.

unless you're on an XSI-conformant system.

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/