Re: A fix for the F3 /var/log bug... / POSIX and '##'

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:58, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:

> that's wrong reasoning. the claim that a shell is posix-compliant does
> not imply that it does not contain non-posix extensions.

Maybe we do not agree on our terms, and if that is so then this would be a usage question.

The HP-UX text quoted did say "conform to" rather than 'complaint'...

"This shell is intended to conform to the shell specification of the POSIX.2 Shell and Utility standards."

To me 'conform' means to NOT color outside the lines, as it were, and then to stop the work right there. Whereas there is a tolerant usage now current, in which 'conform' means to color inside the lines, but if you want to doodle in the margins that's OK, because nobody said you couldn't -- I'd use 'comply' for that, but some folks like to make 'conform' and 'comply' synonyms.

For example, from 'man bash': "Bash is intended to be a conformant implementation of the IEEE POSIX Shell..." I'd prefer that they say it's a 'compliant' shell, not a 'conformant' one, because Bash adds so many extensions.

> i have doubts about this. every system today has a posix shell. but
> not necessarily /bin/sh. the reasoning is to keep scripts from the
> stone age (that rely on behaviour that contradicts posix) working.

Egad. Why can't all these scripts call the old shell under some other name, like '/bin/oldsh'? First you'd run a script to find all scripts older than X days, and change their first lines to call the old shell.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]