On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM, David Collier <[email protected]> wrote: >> A better decision would be to write your scrips in >> standard-compliant shell. > > OK, pardon my ignorance then. > > It seems to me that the syntax for functions in ash and bash is different > and incompatible.
For example? > I had assumed that was a fixed part of the universe, and something I'd > have to live with. ash doesn't implement all bash stuff. I am trying to add more, but frankly, implementing all bashisms is not a sensible goal so far: some of them are pure featuritis, like <<<word redirection or `<file` hack: users can trivially use standard-compliant constructs instead. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
