On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 11:52:56 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > Of course, I can see how this can be used for playing some practical jokes, > > even on yourself. I would much rather if there is an easy way to make time > > take a -n N option instead. > > That's more acceptable than a new special variable, in my opinion. However, > I don't think either one is really needed. You can already do > > time for ((i=1; i<=100; i++)); do my command here; done > > or write a repeat (with eval) function, and do something like > > time repeat -e 100 'my command here'
No, it it not a "special" variable, it is a regular shell variable, if it exists at all. And, that's a lot of typing you just did for something that could be simply accomplished by: time -100 'my command (with redirections) here' But more importantly, with or without eval, no shell function can properly parse the remaining pipeline. Anyway, I think the ability of the time command to execute something multiple times and then measure the total elapsed time is interesting, so I posted it for anyone who might also find it interesting. Take it or leave it. As you see, I am the first one to admit that it is not perfect.
