Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
> There's a common confusion in this in the nature of /bin/sh.
> There's no standard (neither POSIX nor Unix) that specifies that
> /bin/sh should be any variant of the Bourne shell.
Sure there is, POSIX. Or rather their Austin Group. And while they done
an extremely poor
Jorgen Grahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(I could get away with using Bash in these cases. It has functions,
>local variables and so on. Writing portable Bourne shell is not as
>much fun.)
Can you explain this? Bourne is always more portable than Bash.
That's why you'll find experienced shell
