At 2007-04-14T12:46:13+1200, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
> On Sat 14 Apr 2007 12:24:43 NZST +1200, Matthew Gregan wrote:
>
> > Can we kill this fallacy already? $() is specified by POSIX[0]. If you've
> > got some shell that claims to be POSIX conformant and does not support $(),
> > the shell is broken.
>
> Or just very old. Your reference is 2004.
It has been in POSIX for much longer. They don't make the historical
standards available via the web (as far as I can find).
> Solaris /bin/sh 10 years ago did not support it AFAIR.
That shell does not purport to be POSIX compliant. It's just an ancient
Bourne shell implementation. You want /usr/xpg4/bin/sh or somesuch for a
POSIX compliant shell. This is typical of Solaris in general. The tools
available in the default /bin (/usr/bin, etc.) directories are ancient and
non-standard, and you have to jump through hoops to get anything vaguely
standard compliant. Such is the pain of "backwards compatibility", I guess.
> But I don't really care, I conlcuded a long time ago that the only really
> portable way of shell programming is using bash. Or tcsh.
Well, if you're going to give up on POSIX shell compatibility, you might as
well drop shell completely and use a real programming language while you're
at it. :-)
Cheers,
-mjg
--
Matthew Gregan |/
/| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
