RE: ash does not understand '~'
> From: Andrew DeFaria
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 12:04 AM
> Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
>
> >>I'm not that concerned about Amiga OS.
> > I'm not surprised.
> >
> >Did you even read what I've left unsnipped above,
> >
> I glanced at it. Even went on line and googled around for Amiga OS a
> little. Too much info too little time. As I said I'm not that concerned
> about Amiga OS that much. Ancient OSes are of little interest to me
> except as historical reading...
Had you googled more, you might had come up with something not so ancient
but still Amiga related. (e.g. "AROS") Well, let's leave it here...
> >>Honestly I don't know much about it. Is it even Unix like?
> >>
> >More so than D.O.S. (i.e. cmd/command) is.
> >
> Who ever said that DOS was "unix like"!?! Hell we aren't discussing
> whether or not "~" is understood by DOS (cmd/command)!?!
;-) you asked about beeing "unix like", you got an answer.
> >Given the contents of geekgadgets the "unix-likeness" is or
> could be at the same level as cygwin
> >provides - in some areas better, others lesser.
> >
> Then it should therefore sport a modern shell that at least understands
> "~", no?
Yes, pdksh.
But now we're back here gain, I do not agree to "modern shell" beeing an
apropriate statement. shell's are ancient, built with ancient methods (i.e.
fork() ). They're very useful and whatever you can think of, but not modern,
just ancient.
> >Well - whatever, this os OT. :-] lets stop it.
> >
> But it's fun! :-)
=-)
/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE - 59?16.37'N, 17?12.60'E
-- printf("Timezone: %s\n", (DST)?"UTC+02":"UTC+01"); --
--END OF MESSAGE--
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
I'm not that concerned about Amiga OS.
I'm not surprised.
Did you even read what I've left unsnipped above,
I glanced at it. Even went on line and googled around for Amiga OS a
little. Too much info too little time. As I said I'm not that concerned
about Amiga OS that much. Ancient OSes are of little interest to me
except as historical reading...
which was my main point. The Amiga references was given as an _example_ of an OS where bash et al are _HARD_ to port, others may well exists, this was the one *I* knew about.
Honestly I don't know much about it. Is it even Unix like?
More so than D.O.S. (i.e. cmd/command) is.
Who ever said that DOS was "unix like"!?! Hell we aren't discussing
whether or not "~" is understood by DOS (cmd/command)!?!
Given the contents of geekgadgets the "unix-likeness" is or could be at the same level as cygwin
provides - in some areas better, others lesser.
Then it should therefore sport a modern shell that at least understands
"~", no?
('could be' as the development has "stopped")
Sorta like Latin, eh?
Well - whatever, this os OT. :-] lets stop it.
But it's fun! :-)
I know, I know, old habits die hard and that is essentially my point. I
remember one time complaining about HP-UX not recognizing the backspace
key when logging into a tty. Old timers there quickly told me that del =
backspace which, to me at the time, was totally weird. Why put a key on
a keyboard labelled backspace which does not do backspace?!? Why have
del do a backspace instead?
One old timer piped up "Well in the old days sonny! [embellishing here a
little bit] we only had teletypes and if you looked at a the keys there
the DEL key was a lot easier to hit than the backspace key" to which I
gave a puzzled grin and replied "Who's using teletypes anymore?".
Another old timer remarked that the user could actually want a backspace
in their password to which I could think of two responses: 1) "What if
they wanted DEL?" and 2) "If they are wierd enough to want a backspace
in their password then they should have to escape it!".
OK, I had my quota of fun for this Friday. See y'all next week! :-)
--
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: ash does not understand '~'
> From: Andrew DeFaria
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 9:20 PM
> Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
>
> >>From: Andrew DeFaria
> >>Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:36 PM
> >>
> >OS wars begin(?) - Please, do not!
> >
> >>Non-protable to such "OSes" that don't have a more modern shell
> then Bourne/Ash I guess. Are there any "OSes" that don't support
> shells like csh, tcsh, ksh, bash?
> >>
SNIP
> >bash, and might I guess - most of those above, are/is littered
> with fork() calls IIUC (I have not looked).
> >
> >I'm not too sure if fork()-use is to be considered "state of the
> art" and thus make a containing project be considered "modern".
> Without really knowing I would have thought better of such
> projects if they'd used pthreads or some such instead. [ This
> statement is based on "basic OS theory" taught at university
> college in Sweden at least ]
> >
> >IMO your "modern shell" statement above is about the same as was
> stating "DOS compatible" a number of years ago. [BG: 640K ought
> to be enough...]
SNIP
> I'm not that concerned about Amiga OS.
I'm not surprised.
Did you even read what I've left unsnipped above, which was my main point.
The Amiga references was given as an _example_ of an OS where bash et al are
_HARD_ to port, others may well exists, this was the one *I* knew about.
> Honestly I don't know much about it. Is it even Unix like?
More so than D.O.S. (i.e. cmd/command) is. Given the contents of
geekgadgets the "unix-likeness" is or could be at the same level as cygwin
provides - in some areas better, others lesser. ('could be' as the
development has "stopped")
Well - whatever, this os OT. :-] lets stop it.
/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE - 59?16.37'N, 17?12.60'E
-- printf("Timezone: %s\n", (DST)?"UTC+02":"UTC+01"); --
--END OF MESSAGE--
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
From: Andrew DeFaria
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:36 PM
OS wars begin(?) - Please, do not!
Non-protable to such "OSes" that don't have a more modern shell then Bourne/Ash I guess. Are there any "OSes" that don't support shells like csh, tcsh, ksh, bash?
Old info; AmigaOS had(has) very little support for fork() as all of the OS ran(runs) in the same memory space (under special circumstanses there was a vfork() though; see geekgadgets below. In addition to the "lightweight threads" that were/are standard).
bash, and might I guess - most of those above, are/is littered with fork() calls IIUC (I have not looked).
I'm not too sure if fork()-use is to be considered "state of the art" and thus make a containing project be considered "modern". Without really knowing I would have thought better of such projects if they'd used pthreads or some such instead. [ This statement is based on "basic OS theory" taught at university college in Sweden at least ]
IMO your "modern shell" statement above is about the same as was stating "DOS compatible" a number of years ago. [BG: 640K ought to be enough...]
About AmigaOS:
There was(is) a pdksh available though. It was(is) included in the "geekgadgets" unix
emulation project.
Yes, geekgadgets was the same for AmigaOS as cygwin currently is for Windows.
I believe "Fred Fish" is well known to former cygnus.com and gdb people? He was the initiatior(?) of geekgadgets, at least he held his hand on it for a long time.
Actually this project still exists, but has a very "low profile" as most of its users and maintainers are gone.
/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE - Amiga user since '85 (the beginning)
-- printf("Timezone: %s\n", (DST)?"UTC+02":"UTC+01"); --
--END OF MESSAGE--
I'm not that concerned about Amiga OS. Honestly I don't know much about
it. Is it even Unix like?
--
A flashlight is a case for holding dead batteries.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the following shell script does not work at least with ash-20031007-1 > > although I don't see any reason why this should not be a valid syntax. If > > you use > > The reason is, '~' is an extension to the bourne shell syntax, first > defined in csh or tcsh, AFAIK. ash is a pure bourne shell with next > to no extensions. Using '~' in a shell script is non-portable. > > Corinna FWIW, the "export VAR=VALUE" syntax is also non-portable, and was introduced in ksh. In sh, "VAR=VALUE; export VAR" should be used. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: ash does not understand '~'
> From: Andrew DeFaria
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:36 PM
OS wars begin(?) - Please, do not!
> Non-protable to such "OSes" that don't have a more modern shell then
> Bourne/Ash I guess. Are there any "OSes" that don't support shells like
> csh, tcsh, ksh, bash?
Old info; AmigaOS had(has) very little support for fork() as all of the OS
ran(runs) in the same memory space (under special circumstanses there was a
vfork() though; see geekgadgets below. In addition to the "lightweight
threads" that were/are standard).
bash, and might I guess - most of those above, are/is littered with fork()
calls IIUC (I have not looked).
I'm not too sure if fork()-use is to be considered "state of the art" and
thus make a containing project be considered "modern".
Without really knowing I would have thought better of such projects if
they'd used pthreads or some such instead. [ This statement is based on
"basic OS theory" taught at university college in Sweden at least ]
IMO your "modern shell" statement above is about the same as was stating
"DOS compatible" a number of years ago. [BG: 640K ought to be enough...]
About AmigaOS:
There was(is) a pdksh available though. It was(is) included in the
"geekgadgets" unix emulation project.
Yes, geekgadgets was the same for AmigaOS as cygwin currently is for
Windows.
I believe "Fred Fish" is well known to former cygnus.com and gdb people? He
was the initiatior(?) of geekgadgets, at least he held his hand on it for a
long time.
Actually this project still exists, but has a very "low profile" as most of
its users and maintainers are gone.
/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE - Amiga user since '85 (the beginning)
-- printf("Timezone: %s\n", (DST)?"UTC+02":"UTC+01"); --
--END OF MESSAGE--
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote: Hi, the following shell script does not work at least with ash-20031007-1 although I don't see any reason why this should not be a valid syntax. If you use The reason is, '~' is an extension to the bourne shell syntax, first defined in csh or tcsh, AFAIK. ash is a pure bourne shell with next to no extensions. Using '~' in a shell script is non-portable. Non-protable to such "OSes" that don't have a more modern shell then Bourne/Ash I guess. Are there any "OSes" that don't support shells like csh, tcsh, ksh, bash? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:36:54PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote: >Corinna Vinschen wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 1:04 PM: >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote: >>> BTW: It does also not know the "[ ]" syntax for a built-in test, you >>> always have to use "test": >>> >>> if test -f /etc/hosts; then >>> echo "/etc/hosts exist!" >>> fi >> >> Beep. Wrong. It knows [ ] >> >> Corinna >> >>> and you cannot combine export with an assignment, you have to write >>> separate statements: >>> >>> VARIABLE=test >>> export VARIABLE >> >> Beep. Wrong, too. export var=value is a vaild bourne shell syntax. > >Did that change at some point? I remember having really big problems >writing scripts running on a on Solaris, Linux and Cygwin some years >ago and IIRC it was basically because of ash at that time ... It must have changed because I recally ash not accepting that syntax, too and I know that older versions of /bin/sh don't like it. ash does understand it now, though. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > I thought this was resolved by making '/bin/[' a symlink to /bin/test. > > This gives the appearance of the shell supporting [ ] even though it's > > really just running a program just as if you had used 'test'. > How does that take care of the closing `]' ? Presumably it looks at argv and if invoked as [ it knows to ignore the closing ]. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 03:46:16PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:48:12AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > > I thought this was resolved by making '/bin/[' a symlink to /bin/test. > > This gives the appearance of the shell supporting [ ] even though it's > > really just running a program just as if you had used 'test'. > How does that take care of the closing `]' ? The test(1) sources are your friend ;-) The above isn't true for ash but test(1) is able to work that way. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:48:12AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > Jörg Schaible wrote: > > > > Corinna Vinschen wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 1:04 PM: > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote: > > >> BTW: It does also not know the "[ ]" syntax for a built-in test, you > > >> always have to use "test": > > >> > > >> if test -f /etc/hosts; then > > >> echo "/etc/hosts exist!" > > >> fi > > > > > > Beep. Wrong. It knows [ ] > > > > > > Corinna > > > Did that change at some point? I remember having really big problems writing > > scripts running on a on Solaris, Linux and Cygwin some years ago and IIRC it > > was basically because of ash at that time ... > > > > I thought this was resolved by making '/bin/[' a symlink to /bin/test. > This gives the appearance of the shell supporting [ ] even though it's > really just running a program just as if you had used 'test'. How does that take care of the closing `]' ? rlc -- No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he had only had good intentions. He had money as well. -- Margaret Thatcher -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
Jörg Schaible wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 1:04 PM: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote: > >> BTW: It does also not know the "[ ]" syntax for a built-in test, you > >> always have to use "test": > >> > >> if test -f /etc/hosts; then > >> echo "/etc/hosts exist!" > >> fi > > > > Beep. Wrong. It knows [ ] > > > > Corinna > Did that change at some point? I remember having really big problems writing scripts > running on a on Solaris, Linux and Cygwin some years ago and IIRC it was > basically because of ash at that time ... > I thought this was resolved by making '/bin/[' a symlink to /bin/test. This gives the appearance of the shell supporting [ ] even though it's really just running a program just as if you had used 'test'. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: ash does not understand '~'
Corinna Vinschen wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 1:04 PM: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote: >> BTW: It does also not know the "[ ]" syntax for a built-in test, you >> always have to use "test": >> >> if test -f /etc/hosts; then >> echo "/etc/hosts exist!" >> fi > > Beep. Wrong. It knows [ ] > > Corinna > >> and you cannot combine export with an assignment, you have to write >> separate statements: >> >> VARIABLE=test >> export VARIABLE > > Beep. Wrong, too. export var=value is a vaild bourne shell syntax. > > Corinna Did that change at some point? I remember having really big problems writing scripts running on a on Solaris, Linux and Cygwin some years ago and IIRC it was basically because of ash at that time ... Regards, Jörg -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote: > BTW: It does also not know the "[ ]" syntax for a built-in test, you always have to > use "test": > > if test -f /etc/hosts; then > echo "/etc/hosts exist!" > fi Beep. Wrong. It knows [ ] Corinna > and you cannot combine export with an assignment, you have to write separate > statements: > > VARIABLE=test > export VARIABLE Beep. Wrong, too. export var=value is a vaild bourne shell syntax. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: ash does not understand '~'
Hi Ralf,
Ralf Habacker wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 12:20 PM:
> the following shell script does not work at least with
> ash-20031007-1 although I don't see any reason why this
> should not be a valid syntax. If you use
>
> export PATH=${HOME}:/usr/bin
>
> then the scripts runs. bash has no problems with this.
>
>
> --- ~/test ---
> #!/bin/sh
> export PATH=~:/usr/bin
> test2
>
> --- ~/test2 ---
> #!/bin/sh
> echo "test2"
ash does not know "~", see:
$ sh
\[\033]0;\w\007
\033[1m\]\[\033[34m\][$SHLVL] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \[\033[33m\w\033[0m\]
$ cd /
\[\033]0;\w\007
\033[1m\]\[\033[34m\][$SHLVL] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \[\033[33m\w\033[0m\]
$ cd ~
cd: can't cd to ~
\[\033]0;\w\007
\033[1m\]\[\033[34m\][$SHLVL] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \[\033[33m\w\033[0m\]
$ exit
BTW: It does also not know the "[ ]" syntax for a built-in test, you always have to
use "test":
if test -f /etc/hosts; then
echo "/etc/hosts exist!"
fi
and you cannot combine export with an assignment, you have to write separate
statements:
VARIABLE=test
export VARIABLE
Just a short overview over the most common pitfalls :)
Regards,
Jörg
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: ash does not understand '~'
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote: > Hi, > > the following shell script does not work at least with ash-20031007-1 > although I don't see any reason why this should not be a valid syntax. If > you use The reason is, '~' is an extension to the bourne shell syntax, first defined in csh or tcsh, AFAIK. ash is a pure bourne shell with next to no extensions. Using '~' in a shell script is non-portable. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
