Something funny about Windows

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 14:56, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 11:55, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >>>Normally, I'd suggest ./test and expect that to work reliably across
> >>>Unix-like operating systems.
> >>
> >>Possibly. The word "test" is reserved in some shells.
> > 
> > 
> > It's a built-in, which means only that it is found ahead of a PATH
> > search for executables.  You can still specify the path to a
> > real executable if you want.
> 
> Umm... read what I wrote. It is a built-in for bash. I did not
> specify bash. I have used a shell in which "test" is a reserved
> word, and could be used only under restricted contexts, and didn't
> mean what you probably think it meant. It put the shell into
> a "debug mode" of operation. So I'm simply exercising caution
> in the "expect it to work reliably across Unix-like operating
> systems" part of the quote.

I thought we were talking about unix-like shells.  That is
not a unix-like shell behavior.  At least not one that is
anything like the default (bourne) shell since 1977 or so.

> >>Yes, SCO UNIX is "more nearly" UNIX.
> > 
> > 
> > There have been very few variations in the bourne shell so I
> > wouldn't expect a difference in that respect. If you go back
> > far enough you might find one that didn't have test as a
> > built-in and would always have run /bin/test or it's '[' link
> > as an external program.
> 
> What does this have to do with SCO?

Xenix and SCO both used bourne shells.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com