Hi, At 4:01 am -0700 12/8/99, Aaron Smith wrote: >this seems undesirable to me, since using it immediately makes your shell >scripts nonportable. i liked the ls -t suggestion though. Further, isn't test a builtin for most (all?) shells? Sounds like a can of worms to me... > >On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:18:50AM +0200, Graham Wheeler wrote: >> thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to test(1), >> to compare files based on criteria like size or modification date? >> >> Anyone else think this is a good idea? -- Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: New tests for test(1) Nadav Eiron
- Re: New tests for test(1) Dag-Erling Smorgrav
- Re: New tests for test(1) Sheldon Hearn
- Re: New tests for test(1) Sheldon Hearn
- Re: New tests for test(1) Brian F. Feldman
- Re: New tests for test(1) Brian F. Feldman
- Re: New tests for test(1) Sheldon Hearn
- Re: New tests for test(1) Aaron Smith
- Re: New tests for test(1) Graham Wheeler
- Re: New tests for test(1) Sheldon Hearn
- Re: New tests for test(1) Bob Bishop
- Re: New tests for test(1) Sheldon Hearn
- Re: New tests for test(1) Martin Cracauer
- Re: New tests for test(1) Peter Jeremy
- Re: New tests for test(1) Sheldon Hearn
- Re: New tests for test(1) Brian F. Feldman
- Re: New tests for test(1) Sheldon Hearn
- Re: New tests for test(1) Brian F. Feldman
- Re: New tests for test(1) Sheldon Hearn