This is much more code:
F(){ find $@; }
This simple func definition will be 4 lines in my coding style. :) And I
like adding at least one blank line between functions.
Then just exclude .bashrc from your coding style.
Le 04/08/2010 15:29, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
I do not agree. Aliases are much simpler to use than functions.
Please provide examples.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Marc Herbert marc.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 04/08/2010 15:29, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
I do not agree. Aliases are much simpler to use than functions.
Please provide examples.
The following is a part of my aliases. I'll have to write much more code if
I
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Clark J. Wang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Marc Herbert marc.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 04/08/2010 15:29, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
I do not agree. Aliases are much simpler to use than functions.
Please provide examples.
The following is a part of my aliases.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Chris F.A. Johnson ch...@cfajohnson.comwrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Clark J. Wang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Marc Herbert marc.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 04/08/2010 15:29, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
I do not agree. Aliases are much simpler to use
Le 04/08/2010 11:39, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
Seems like I must explicitly use the `function' keyword to define foo() for
this scenario. Is that the correct behavior?
The correct behaviour is simply not to use aliases, since they bring nothing
to the table compared to functions. Have a look at
Am 04.08.2010 12:39, schrieb Clark J. Wang:
I was testing the precedence between functions and aliases so I tried like
this (with bash 4.1.5):
$ cat rc
alias foo='echo this is the alias'
foo()
{
builtin echo 'this is the function'
}
foo
$ source rc
bash: confusing-aliases-2.sh: line 4:
On 08/04/2010 05:03 AM, Marc Herbert wrote:
Le 04/08/2010 11:39, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
Seems like I must explicitly use the `function' keyword to define foo() for
this scenario. Is that the correct behavior?
The correct behaviour is simply not to use aliases, since they bring nothing
to
Am 04.08.2010 15:13, schrieb Eric Blake:
On 08/04/2010 05:03 AM, Marc Herbert wrote:
Le 04/08/2010 11:39, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
Seems like I must explicitly use the `function' keyword to define foo() for
this scenario. Is that the correct behavior?
The correct behaviour is simply not to
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Marc Herbert marc.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 04/08/2010 11:39, Clark J. Wang a écrit :
Seems like I must explicitly use the `function' keyword to define foo()
for
this scenario. Is that the correct behavior?
The correct behaviour is simply not to use
Am 04.08.2010 16:38, schrieb Clark J. Wang:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Bernd Egginkmono...@sudrala.de wrote:
Am 04.08.2010 12:39, schrieb Clark J. Wang:
I was testing the precedence between functions and aliases so I tried like
this (with bash 4.1.5):
$ cat rc
alias foo='echo this
On 8/4/10 10:38 AM, Clark J. Wang wrote:
Function definitions are not simple commands. Actually, func definition
syntax is listed under the *Compound Commands* section in bash2.05b's man
page and in bash3+ it's been moved to a separate section.
While technically true, that doesn't enter into
12 matches
Mail list logo
