Rhialto wrote: > On Mon 23 Jun 2008 at 16:14:51 -0400, James Vega wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:47:15PM +0200, Rhialto wrote: >>> But the current Bourne shell *is* a POSIX shell. >> You're thinking of the Bourne-Again SHell (aka bash). I'm referring to >> the actual Bourne shell, which isn't obsolete yet. > > No, I'm not. On the BSDs for instance, /bin/sh is not bash nor ksh nor > ash nor dash, but it *is* a POSIX shell. For the simple reason that > currenent Unixen ought to be POSIX compliant.
Rhialto is correct that the current Unix shell is a POSIX shell, for the simple reason that the Single Unix Specification unified UNIX, POSIX (IEEE 1003), and ISO/IEC 9945. See the frontmatter of the Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6, available from opengroup.org. /bin/sh on a conforming Unix system is an Open Group / POSIX / ISO shell. Whether it could properly be called the "Bourne shell" is perhaps debatable, since it's no longer a "traditional" Bourne shell with just the behavior and syntax of Steve Bourne's shell from Unix 7th Edition. But the current Unix shell is definitely a descendant of the Bourne shell, and closer to it than to bash or ksh, much less the csh family or more exotic shells. And yes, it does support $() for command substitution. > I have appended a few fragments from sh(1) at the end. The BSD man pages are hardly authoritive, however. Unix is defined by its standard, and its standard says the shell supports $(). -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
