On Monday 22 September 2008 20:12, Roy Marples wrote: > On Monday 22 September 2008 17:57:03 Alain M. wrote: > > 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. > > How is this controversial? > Expecting /bin/sh to behave like bash is just as silly as expecting > #!/usr/bin/perl to behave like python.
Not really. Many bash constructs are simply not well defined for /bin/sh. For example: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html "... The following words may be recognized as reserved words on some implementations (when none of the characters are quoted), causing unspecified results: [[ ]] function select ..." I think you guys are picking a flamebait way too easy. Admit it, both things are important: * Following standards is important when you write code, otherwise it will be difficult to support it * Being able to support some extensions dialects of a particular shell is important is you have a big body of shell code you need to run, and you just can't rewrite it all in purely standard shell. Different situations, different needs. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
