[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: extension of file-test primitives?

From: Chet Ramey
Subject: Re: extension of file-test primitives?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:00:17 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0

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    address@hidden    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]