From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Abbey To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: RE: bash: setenv: command not found Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:43:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <1010208173749.AA50606.SM@nike.INS.CWRU.Edu> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00464.html Today, Chet Ramey wrote: > > call me crazy but I like orthogonality, and logically named > > commands. > > You like two completely different ways of doing assignments? um, yeah... if they're different concepts. I don't exactly think local shell variables and the global process environment should be manipulated with the same syntax. > First, export foo=bar is just convenient shorthand for > > foo=bar > export foo yep, I'm familiar with it: foo=bar sets a local shell variable foo= unsets a local shell variable export foo promotes a local shell variable into the process environ unset foo demotes a process environ *AND* unsets the same shell variable > There is only one way to do assignment statements in sh: var=value. > All variable assignments are local, with the single exception of > variable assignments preceding a command. `export' is the only way > to make a variable part of the environment. but where is "unexport"? how do I demote a process environment variable without removing it from the local shell? It doesn't matter. Fred had the right point: it's POSIX. You're just doing what the spec says. I just don't much care for this aspect of the spec, like I said, call me crazy. ;) I'll just file it in my "get over it" file and move on with life... it's not like I'm not *used* to this, I just don't *like* it. Besides it's such a minor item in comparison to all the other features in bash. > sh-style shells are much more consistent. Agreed, they are consient, I just don't think they're orthogonal. I tend to really like orthagonal design; I learned assembly programming on a PDP-11 (well, ok a simulated one, 'cuz the uni's original died a bit before I took the class) then I went out and studied x86 assembly.... p.s. for those that replied to my last... Chet's original note finally showed up, and I figured out the problem... lousy ISP's mail servers are taking 5-10 MINUTES to SYN_ACK... lots of stuff is going into retry queues all over the net, no wonder my lists are such a mess. :( -- now the forces of openness have a powerful and unexpected new ally - http://ibm.com/linux -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple