On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:24:56 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2011-01-26 14:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:36:24 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2011-01-25 23:59, Jesse Phillips wrote:
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
Yeah, I guess you're right, didn't think there were a lot people who
used other shells. Since I almost know nothing about shell scripting
and
even less about non-bourne shells, will it be possible to port to
other
shells? How much do they differ?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
To add to Lutger's message. I believe it is sh that is required by
all Posix systems, or at least an equivalent. Similarly I think vi is
also a requirement.
In all likelyhood you probably used a Bash specific feature, but
usually everyone has bash even if they use zsh... Though
Ubuntu/Debian has started pointing /bin/sh to dash which is complaint
with posix...
Ok. I'll see I can use only sh.
FWIW, /bin/sh is usually a symlink to bash, and it makes bash behave
like the original Bourne Shell.
/bin/sh is not a symlink on Mac OS X. I guess I just can try to use sh
instead of bash.
Yes, it should limit you to /bin/sh supported commands
I typically find /bin/sh features to be enough for implementing most
scripts.
I have no idea. I need to be able use the following commands/functions:
export, source, builtin hash, rm, echo, exit, exec
export => supported, but has a more limited syntax than bash
source => supported via .
builtin hash => supported
rm => command (shell independent)
exit => supported
exec => supported
-Steve
