True and False (Gimme a break!) :-)
Daniel R. Levy
levy at ttrdc.UUCP
Wed Nov 20 10:44:40 AEST 1985
In article <28500049 at ISM780B.UUCP>, tim at ISM780B.UUCP writes:
>Anyone at AT&T care to explain why "true" is up to version 1.4 and
>"false" is at version 1.3? Did 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 ( for "true" )
>have bugs, and if so, what were they?
Me, too. I wanna know!!!!!
Maybe the version numbers are when the scripts where FIRST implemented?
I can't see a "true" or a "false" breaking. For that matter, why not
implement "true" and "false" as executables? Ya know,
/* true.c */
main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char **argv; /* Is this necessary? (To include argv if only argc wanted) */
{
if (argc > 1) write(2,"Usage: true\n",12);
return 0;
}
/* false.c */
main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char **argv;
{
if (argc > 1) write(2,"Usage: false\n",13);
return 255;
}
It would be faster :-).
--
------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are
| dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em-
| an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack.
| skokie, illinois |
-------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
More information about the Comp.unix.wizards
mailing list