Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:04:41 -0800 From: Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Laurence Berland <stuyman@confusion.net>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Dan Papasian <bugg@bugg.strangled.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: which(1), rewritten in C? Message-ID: <20000303120441.A56070@wopr.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <v0421010db4e5929ddd15@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 11:13:23AM -0500 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003022232310.301-100000@picnic.mat.net> <38BF334F.2F10D4B0@confusion.net> <v0421010db4e5929ddd15@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 11:13:23AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > If you do a 'type -a which' or 'help which' in bash, you'll find that > 'which' is not a built-in function in bash either. Sh/bash people > would be more likely to use 'type blah' or 'type -a blah' instead > of 'which blah'. For what little it's worth, I'm a bash user and always use "which". Probably because half the time, it's in backquotes: $ less `which which` and the "type" builtin is too verbose, saying "which is hashed (/usr/bin/which)." (It seems "type -p which" will do what I want, but it's easier to type "which which", especially since that is my habit already.) As I have a slow machine by modern standards, I'm all for a faster which(1) as well. -- Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> * Stay close to the Vorlon. http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000303120441.A56070>