Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • I believe that is a way to enable/disable builtins if desired/required. Commented Jan 23, 2019 at 22:43
  • 2
    Disabling the built-in by removing the external implementation? Now there are no commands of name printf available. Commented Jan 23, 2019 at 22:49
  • @studog, so create an empty file with the same name as the built-in, turn on the execute bit, and put it in a directory in your PATH. :P Commented Jan 23, 2019 at 23:13
  • @Wildcard A strictly compliant shell would then see the name while searching the PATH and then call the built-in utility, not the external script. What if you'd want to call the external script in your path? Hmm... This seems to call for a table describing the different possibilities. There is one here, but it doesn't make sense to me. Commented Jan 23, 2019 at 23:23
  • @Kusalananda, re your first sentence, that was my point. Hence why I said to create an empty file. Commented Jan 23, 2019 at 23:28