Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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: "Herb Martin" To: Subject: RE: Another (differently) broken man on CygWin 1.5.8 -- Apropos still troublesome Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:02:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <081520051447.12948.4300AAF2000D77650000329422064244130A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net> Message-ID: X-Sign-LQC: HerbM AT learnquick DOT com/2005-08-15 10:02:36/=ffwkgzuj > From: Eric Blake [mailto:ericblake AT comcast DOT net] > To: Herb Martin; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com > > 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. hash --help gives two swith only (fairly cryptic lines). BUT, help hash is much better than anything else I have seen so far. Thanks. (I had not even been TRYING "help" thinking that --help, man, or info were the choices for getting help.) Thanks again, and I really appreciate eveyone else's help too. -- Herb Martin -- 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/