Re: interactive shell detection in shrc
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.devel.userlevel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 07:53:59AM -0700, George Georgalis wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 1:26?PM George Georgalis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 1:09?PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> So how can the test be reliable in all circumstances? > >> > > > > test -t 0 > > > > is reliable. > > > > I use > > > > tty -s || return 0 > > > > to remind me what I'm testing for (same difference), > > and branch out of .profile for not interactive sessions. > > > > Is there a case where this is not the solution? > When I decided this is what interactive means > all of the edge cases went away. Is there a > case I am not considering? None that I'm aware of. I---as many others I think---didn't even know that test(1) has an option to test this. It seems it's the more reliable as long as the systems on which the script has to be interpreted as a test(1)---or a builtin of that name---that understands the option. -- Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com> http://www.kergis.com/ http://kertex.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C