symbolic links, aliases, cls clear

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2006-04-12, jpd wrote:
> Begin  <j4vvg3-sfc.ln1 at xword.teksavvy.com>
> On 2006-04-12, Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>    These days, the ISO-6429 standard (almost the same as the older
>>    ANSI x3.64) is so close to universal that I don't bother writing
>>    for anything else any more.
>
> Oh, wonderful. ``All the world's a vax^W^WISO-6429 compatible'' all over
> again.
>
>>    If the need arises, I'll do it, but it will be simple to do, and
>>    much faster (both in coding and script execution) than trying to
>>    accommodate all terminals from the start.
>
> Yes, why use a perfectly good abstraction when you can hardcode stuff.

   If it were perfectly good, there would be no question; however,
   it's not.

>>    I still have a system which does not have tput.
>
> And that justifies everything else. Of course.

   If I want to write portable scripts, then yes, it does.

-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson, author   |    <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
   Shell Scripting Recipes:     |  My code in this post, if any,
   A Problem-Solution Approach  |          is released under the
   2005, Apress                 |     GNU General Public Licence