[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should this be this way?
From: |
Sven Mascheck |
Subject: |
Re: Should this be this way? |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:47:13 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:55:01AM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Who still remembers when if the exec(2) failed then the shell
> examined the first character. If it was a '#' then shell ran the file
> through csh. If ':' then through ksh. If neither then sh. This may
> have been a local hack though. Clearly the Berkeley #! hack is better.
the other way round :)
# was the Berkeley hack implemented in both sh and csh.
#! was the Bell Labs hack, but the first systems to implement
this outside Bell Labs were running in Berkeley.
(I haven't heard of such a ksh hack, yet. Would like to hear more,
off-list if you like)
- Re: Should this be this way?, (continued)
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/26
- Re: Should this be this way?, Greg Wooledge, 2013/02/26
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/26
- Re: Should this be this way?, Greg Wooledge, 2013/02/26
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/27
- Re: Should this be this way?, Chris Down, 2013/02/27
- Re: Should this be this way?, Chet Ramey, 2013/02/28
- Re: Should this be this way?, Bob Proulx, 2013/02/28
- Re: Should this be this way?, Andreas Schwab, 2013/02/28
- Re: Should this be this way?, Pierre Gaston, 2013/02/28
- Re: Should this be this way?,
Sven Mascheck <=
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/28
- Re: Should this be this way?, Chet Ramey, 2013/02/26
- Re: Should this be this way?, Linda Walsh, 2013/02/27
Re: Should this be this way?, Pierre Gaston, 2013/02/26
Re: Should this be this way?, Roman Rakus, 2013/02/26