Is there a reason why bash doesn't treat == as an illegal test
operator when running in POSIX mode?
This is problematic because use of test == in scripts that should be
POSIX isn't getting caught when I run them under bash's POSIX mode.
The scripts then fail when run under dash which seems to be
2012/5/27 Jon Seymour jon.seym...@gmail.com:
Is there a reason why bash doesn't treat == as an illegal test
operator when running in POSIX mode?
POSIX does not say == is not allowed.
POSIX tells you what the shell should at least be able to do. A POSIX
compliant shell can have whatever other
On 27/05/2012, at 17:39, Geir Hauge geir.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/27 Jon Seymour jon.seym...@gmail.com:
Is there a reason why bash doesn't treat == as an illegal test
operator when running in POSIX mode?
POSIX does not say == is not allowed.
POSIX tells you what the shell should at
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 08:45:46 PM Jon Seymour wrote:
On 27/05/2012, at 17:39, Geir Hauge geir.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/27 Jon Seymour jon.seym...@gmail.com:
Is there a reason why bash doesn't treat == as an illegal test
operator when running in POSIX mode?
POSIX does not say
Jon Seymour jon.seym...@gmail.com writes:
As it stands, I can't use bash's POSIX mode to verify the validity or
otherwise of a POSIX script because bash won't report these kinds of
errors - even when running in POSIX mode.
You can't do that anyway: POSIX mode does not disable proper
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Dan Douglas orm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 08:45:46 PM Jon Seymour wrote:
On 27/05/2012, at 17:39, Geir Hauge geir.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess the question is better phrased thus: what use case is usefully
served by having bash's POSIX mode
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
Jon Seymour jon.seym...@gmail.com writes:
As it stands, I can't use bash's POSIX mode to verify the validity or
otherwise of a POSIX script because bash won't report these kinds of
errors - even when running in POSIX
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Jon Seymour jon.seym...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
Jon Seymour jon.seymour@gm
** I guess I can except that current bash behaviour is, on balance,
except - accept
POSIX hasn't provided a way to validate whether a script
only uses features that are required to be supported by POSIX
compliant interpreters.
I believe that was someone else's point, but yes that would be a problem for
anyone who wanted to implement compliance check warnings.
even if bash
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Dan Douglas orm...@gmail.com wrote:
... Bash
just modifies conflicting features to the minimal extent necessary to bring it
into compliance, which seems to be the path of least resistance.
Sure. I understand that this is a reasonable philosophy given that
10 matches
Mail list logo