>
> Over the last year, I did an extensive amount of testinging on bourne
> shell behaviour. bash2 was the only free sh clone that I never had to
> complain over.
I'm surprised.
>
> Is there something substantially you'd like to contribute to the
> discussion, like - say - an example where bash-2.03 doesn't work well?
It's definitely broken on some of my scripts before. If you want me
to go try to find one of those cases, I will.
>
> If your experience is based on old bash1 stuff, forget it. bash got
> improved greatly since it is used as the standard shell for a UNIX
> clone in wide use. Just like our shell improved from the beatings it
> got because it has been the standard script-executing shell on FreeBSD
> and NetBSD for (together) > 10 years now.
ISTR that bash1 had fundamental design flaws; it's been redesigned?
>
> Martin
> --
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
> Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536
>
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] `------------------------------'
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
