On 2007/07/17 19:37, frantisek holop wrote: > hmm, on Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:42:14AM -0400, Eric Furman said that > > [[ is not listed in sh(1) because this construct doesn't exist in sh(1). > > There is a difference in the [[ construct in ksh. Read man ksh(1). > > right, thanks for the answers. > > but is it supposed to be listed in sh(1) or not at all? > i mean if listed, it could get at least a sentence > that it's the same as [ ] or not the same, whatever, no? > > also, is this posix? becasuse the hp-ux posix-sh(1) > (or was it sh-posix(1)?) shell happily processes it...
SUS says it's undefined behaviour, don't use it in portable scripts.
