On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 02:00:53PM +0000, Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > I can understand it. I was more curious about the origins. After > all, that breaks Bourne backward compatibility (in a shell > called Bourne-again shell)
Bourne shell has no functions at all. > Has there be historical versions of sh that > didn't support it? Bourne shell on Ultrix and (I believe still to this day) Sun Solaris. No functions at all. None.
