On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 08:40 +0200, Nils Carlson wrote: > I can't argue against bashisms, but neither can I argue for dashisms. > If we go posix shell compliant, then we should be posix shell > compliant, but posix shell complicance is very very restrictive so > this would be a real pain.
I don't think this is really true. There may be a few small things that dash allows that POSIX sh doesn't but nothing major. The only one I can think of offhand is the "local" keyword; while "local" is handy I don't think we can classify avoiding it as "very very restrictive". I don't think it's too difficult to avoid non-POSIX-isms if you start with dash. I do agree that it's frustrating that everyone (I mean _everyone_; check Google) touts dash as "the POSIX-compliant shell" when it's actually not. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
