Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: ericblake AT comcast DOT net (Eric Blake)
To: Herb Martin <HerbM AT learnquick DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:47:14 +0000
Message-Id: <081520051447.12948.4300AAF2000D77650000329422064244130A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net>
X-Authenticated-Sender: ZXJpY2JsYWtlQGNvbWNhc3QubmV0

> 
> man hash and info hash are both worthless (except to
> admit that "hash" is exists, i.e., is a built-in.

Yes, bash documentation is not the best packaged (I like the
Solaris man pages for shell builtins much better).  What
`man hash' is trying to tell you to do is run `man bash', then
search the BUILTINS section for hash.

> 
> hash --help is nearly as bad, unless perhaps you already
> know how it works and just need the switch letter.
> 

Yes, the bash maintainer did not add the --help option to
his builtins.  Instead, bash provides the builtin help command.
Try `help hash' to see the subset of `man bash' relevant to
the hash command.

--
Eric Blake



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/