A late reply. Xmas and so on :-) On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:33:46PM +0100, Patrick Leslie Polzer wrote: >On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:25:31 +0000 >Magnus Therning <Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > | History! bash seems to be the de-facto shell of Linux. >Why is this? bash is part of the GNU project.
Can't answer that. > | distribution uses it as its default shell. This means that a lot of > | shell scripts in the wild is written to be executed by it (#! > | /bin/bash), quite a few pretend to not be (#! /bin/sh) but use bashisms. >It would be interesting to know whether the bash emulation of zsh can >serve those. In any case, it's not our job to support bad habits. No, but we might be creating a lot of extra work for packagers and users. > | I also wouldn't dare saying that zsh is a proper superset of bash. >Prove the converse :) What exactly do you want me to prove? That it isn't a superset, ie that bash can do something that zsh can't, or supports a syntactical construct that isn't interpreted in the same way in bash? If I could do that you wouldn't have found the uncertainty in my original statement ;-) /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://therning.org/magnus Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish. Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship by patent law on written works. Unreadable code, Why would anyone use it? Learn a better way. -- Geoff Kuenning's contribution to the 2004 Perl Haiku Contest, Haikus about Perl - 'Dishonerable Mention' winner
pgpTDxzq0s6iE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
