On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 21:47:26 -0800 (PST) > From: Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: David Egan Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: bbsnapshot idea for some intrepid programmer > > > On 24-Feb-2002 David Egan Evans wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Ben Neuman wrote: > > > >> (snip) > >> bashism! bashism bad! bashisms make me very cranky. bashisms make me install > >> bash. bash makes me unhappy. > >> > > > > Gotta say it: I feel the same way. I'm a true kornshell lover (ksh93!), > > and gotta make it a flame war :-). Bash does have the posix thing going > > for it, though ... > > > > no, it doesn't have the posix thing. bash not only allows people to not follow > the posix shell standard (as we see by this thread existing) its man page does > not even bother to let people know what is a bash addition and what is standard > shell. > > and if you really want posix from ksh I believe 'set posix' will do it for you. > > Several of us started a crusade in Debian about 2 or so years ago to rid Debian > as much as possible of bashisms. Usually we could just remove the offending > line, sometimes we had to use #!/bin/bash. My box runs /bin/sh as ash and I > enjoy sending in the occasional bug. >
Somehow, I'm not surprised. I've not been impressed with bash. It's ironic that they claim to aspire to ieee 1003.2 compliance, and claim that most posix scripts should run in bash without modification. I rarely have got bourne shell scripts to run correctly in bash without significant modification. (I remember trying once to replace bash with ksh93 for Linux, and realized that I was in way over my head.) David
