This Bash subject is really controversial. As was well explained by Rob, non-bash behaviour will break many things, and apparently so will the reverse.
So... what about meking it a configurable feature? I'd feel much better that way just my 2c, Alain Roy Marples escreveu: > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 05:20 -0500, Rob Landley wrote: >>> I'm not sure (vda) how you'll adopt "their" behavior, as "they" differ. >>> It comes down to scope; I don't think BusyBox has ever adopted bash as a >>> standard to follow, >> Yes, it has. > > No, busybox has adopted a few shells, of which ash is probably the most > POSIX compliant one. busybox has never adopted bash. > >> Now these were mostly old versions of bash. I stopped paying attention to >> anything that went in after 2.04b. But things like curly bracket file >> listing syntax, or echo needing -e? You encounter them all over the place >> in >> Linux. >> >> (And note that if you use dash, echo doesn't support options at all. >> No "echo -e" or "echo -n". Yeah, that breaks things.) > > Such scripts should use #!/bin/bash instead of #!/bin/sh. > If you want bash features then explicitly use bash. If you want bash > features in /bin/sh then get the The Open Group to adopt them :) > >> I have several scripts that use \e as the start of ansi escape sequences, by >> the way. (Octal's a bit 1970's for my tastes...) > > Again, suggest your idea to the The Open Group or just use bash. > > I like the ability to use /bin/sh so my scripts work on default base > systems such as NetBSD where bash not available by default. > > Thanks > > Roy > > _______________________________________________ > busybox mailing list > [email protected] > http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox > > _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
