Re: Non-POSIX shells
- From: Drazen Kacar <dave willfork com>
- To: Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>
- Cc: Drazen Kacar <dave willfork com>, ERDI Gergo <cactus cactus rulez org>, GNOME hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Non-POSIX shells
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 00:50:01 +0100
Sander Vesik wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Drazen Kacar wrote:
> > Which Bourne shell would that be?
>
> The real thing that came with V7 of course 8-)
Ugh.
> > If you try to stick to POSIX semantics (and do the above autoconf trick),
> > you'd most likely run into the same problem that started this thread.
>
> no, you need to use a minimal shell script (or a csh script that doesn't
> use tcsh extensions) that detects a suiatble shell and replaces...
And then what? How do I verify that my big shell script is (strictly?)
POSIX compliant?
> > involves testing on different systems. I don't know a way around that.
>
> This is no different than not using all the exciting extensions to the C
> language your compiler provides. 8-)
I didn't have a problem with that before certain stone-headed hippies
decided to introduce all the exciting extensions.
Not using C extensions isn't very hard. Making use of POSIX can be.
--
.-. .-. I don't think for my employer.
(_ \ / _)
| dave willfork com
|
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]