>> It does not require bash. NetBSD's stock sh, for example, which is >> definitely not bash - it appears to be based on ash - accepts it >> just fine. > [I]t's still not a Bourne shell script, if it contains stuff that the > Bourne shell does not recognize.
Well, yes; that's almost a tautology. But what is a "Bourne shell" these days? If you mean just the shell written by S. R. Bourne, then yes, it's not a Bourne shell script, but that's pretty much irrelevant, because I doubt there's anyone still using the real Bourne code. (Well, anyone who cares about gEDA; there are probably a few people running V9 on real PDP-11s and the like.) Also, the real Bourne code lacks a lot of things that "everyone" supports these days - I think a more useful working definition is "stock /bin/sh", which is a different thing for each target environment and is more a matter for deciding what platforms to care about and what ones not and experimenting. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
