On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 02-11-2007 17:35:08 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: > > I don't see them as inferior. > > I see them as more portable and less confusing. > > Please stop calling it "more portable". The shell code you see in > configure can in a way be called "portable". Your POSIX compliant stuff > isn't.
It is - in the sense the run in more shells. Roy's POSIX compliant stuff runs on at least a handful different shells. bash scripts runs on only one. (busybox ash can run some bash things but mostly they don't work) bash itself is portable but that is another story. -nc -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
