[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

aliases versus functions

I've been using a collection of aliases for a few years and I've been told many times that I should be using 'functions ' to do the same job that my aliases do quite well. I'm told that aliases are not suited for running compound commands but should be limited to simple equivalents such as

     alias cd..='cd ..'.   or     alias ls='ls -aF --color=auto'

For example, I use an alias ' win+ ' to get into my Windows 98SE from Debian----
     alias win+='mount -t vfat /dev/hda1 /mnt/da1; cd /mnt/da1;

     alias win-='cd; umount /mnt/da1' (to unmount)
(I created da1/  in /mnt/

I have multiple Linux distributions installed and can access any of
them from another with aliases constructed along the lines of the above example. I keep them in /root/.bashrc

Just a few minutes ago, I had need of a file which wasn't in knoppix
/dev/ but was available in Lycoris /dev/. Alias came to the rescue. I was in knoppix so I typed ' lyco+ ' and copied the file from Lycoris /dev/ to knoppix /dev/ where it works perfectly..

'Functions' just take up too much space----aliases of compound commands are much more compact and as far as I can tell work as well as 'Functions'. So, why is everyone so set against using aliases for compound commands? It's like telling bees not to fly because they're aerodynamically unsuited for flight.


Reply to: