On Thu, 20 May 2010, Paul Smith wrote: > 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".
yes. and no. Being posix compliant in that we limit scripts to posix features that exist in bash/ash/hush/dash isn't difficult. But try looking through the posix shell standard and you will find lots and lots of "may" etc. etc. It's these that are difficult to handle. All the least common denominators for all so-called posix compliant shells is a frustratingly hard-to-target subset. There's a good chapter on this in the GNU autoconf manual. /nils _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
