Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:44:13 -0700 From: Carl Johnson <carlj@peak.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A request to segregate man pages for shell built-ins Message-ID: <86po99oa8i.fsf@elm.localnet> In-Reply-To: <20171026214620.bf8fcbf2.freebsd@edvax.de> (Polytropon's message of "Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:46:20 %2B0200") References: <mailman.113.1509019202.90583.freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> <20171027021115.A40402@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <20171026214620.bf8fcbf2.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> writes: >> > Keep in mind some shells also offer a builtin replacement for >> > an existing binary. A good example is echo where a binary exists, >> > but the C Shell has its own internal echo, while BASH uses the >> > binary one: >> > >> > % which echo >> > echo: shell built-in command. >> > >> > $ which echo >> > /bin/echo >> >> Again, despite that, echo _is_ builtin to sh(1) - and has more options. > > That is correct (even though sh's "which echo" reports the binary); > sh's echo supports escape sequences using the -e option, while the > binary doesn't. 'Which' is an external for sh so it can't show builtin commands. Sh has the builtin 'type' command which is the equivalent of 'which' for csh. -- Carl Johnson carlj@peak.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86po99oa8i.fsf>