Re: Non-POSIX shells

[Drazen Kacar <dave willfork com>]

Sander Vesik wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Drazen Kacar wrote:

> > Which Bourne shell would that be?
> 
> The real thing that came with V7 of course 8-)

Ugh.

> > If you try to stick to POSIX semantics (and do the above autoconf trick),
> > you'd most likely run into the same problem that started this thread.
> 
> no, you need to use a minimal shell script (or a csh script that doesn't
> use tcsh extensions) that detects a suiatble shell and replaces...

And then what? How do I verify that my big shell script is (strictly?)
POSIX compliant?

> > involves testing on different systems. I don't know a way around that.
> 
> This is no different than not using all the exciting extensions to the C
> language your compiler provides. 8-)

I didn't have a problem with that before certain stone-headed hippies
decided to introduce all the exciting extensions.

Not using C extensions isn't very hard. Making use of POSIX can be.

-- 
 .-.   .-.    I don't think for my employer.
(_  \ /  _)
     |        dave willfork com
     |
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers