Le 04/08/2026 à 01:18, Ruben.Vanlus via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne
Again SHell écrivait :
actually how it works in Bash. While code coming from the Windows ecosystem
requires significantly more adaptation, there are no issues with the
identifiers there. That’s why I’ve now decided to run ZSH as the shell on
Ubuntu.
I think that's the right solution. macOS uses Zsh by default, and Ubuntu
ships Zsh as well. If your scripts rely on Zsh features such as UTF-8
identifiers, running them with Zsh on Ubuntu is the natural migration path.
I don't think this justifies changing Bash's language to match Zsh.
Supporting another shell's extensions is a different goal from
maintaining Bash's own compatibility and design.
I also disagree with the portability argument. Accepting UTF-8
identifiers does not improve portability; it narrows it. Such
identifiers still depend on fonts, keyboard layouts, editors, terminals,
input methods and locale settings that are far from universally
available or consistent. Bash has historically favored the broadest
practical portability across environments, not features that inherently
reduce the set of systems where scripts can be edited, reviewed and
maintained without friction.
--
Léa Gris
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
