On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:16:13 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >As long as they included something that looked like the Bourne shell, adding >other shells as options wouldn't have affected POSIX and X.OPEN compliance. > Bourne shell falls considerable short of POSIX and X.OPEN compliance. I once told an antiquarian of a SunOS 4 /bin.sh deficiency (tilde expansion, IIRC.) He quickly remarked, "Oh, that's Bourne shell." I believe Bourne also lacks "$( ... )" command substitution. Perhaps obsessed with portability, I test some scripts with dash.
>Preferences in e.g., desktop managers, languages, operating systems, are >highly subjective; if it works for you, that's what matters. > >Now, if you're working on a large project hen some standardization is needed; >again, if the choices made on the project work for the project, that's what >matters. > Requirements are stricter for ISVs targeting multiple platforms and FOSS developers. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
