Re: Command execution

[culliton@srg.af.mil (Tom Culliton x2278)]

>>  Duff's rc lets you define a function that looks like a full path, and
>> running the full path will run the function (ie, fn /bin/csh ...). I
>> don't think this is a good idea myself; the uses seem limited to trapping
>> standard programs when invoked by explicit paths, and I see more problems
>> as a result than solutions.

This was exactly what I wanted to do.  One of my friends likes to run a
couple of obnoxious programs on my workstation when he drops by to
visit and I'm not in the office.  Since they're coming from the file
server's shared bin directory a function seemed like a good way to
interdict them.  I can also see other uses to transparently stick a
front end on something, say to translate command line options from one
form to another.  In any case, it was a fairly minor quibble.

>>				Contrary to the documentation, Duff's rc
>> and Byron's behave the *same* for 'foo/bar', and at least Rob Pike a)
>> thinks this is a good thing and b) uses this feature.

This iregularity troubles me more, but thats just because odd little
gotchas set my teeth on edge, and in almost any other unix context
"x/y" is identical to "./x/y".  Could you say more about why Pike
thinks this is good and what you would use it for?

Tom