Greg Wooledge <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> You don't have to perform a separate check for an "empty item list". This
> is perfectly valid, and will do nothing:
> for i in $words; do echo hello, world; done
> If Solaris's shell is giving any output or errors from the commands above,
> then it's crap. (Which means autoconf would have to work around it.)
> For Joerg: the fact that Solaris does NOT put its POSIX-compliant shell
> in /bin/sh is a source of unending pain. Since you can't use
> #!PATH=`getconf PATH`; sh
> in a script, it's useless in real life. Real scripts have to put SOMETHING
> on the shebang line, and the only thing we can use is
> Gods, how I wish POSIX had mandated something like "posix-shell"....
You still have to learn a lot on standards....
There have been at least 3 attempts to standardize #!xxxx in order to find
a way to distribute POSIX compliant shell scripts. It was not possible to find
a way to do this without breaking POSIX.
The fact that Solaris still has a Bourne shell in /bin/sh is no POSIX
noncompliance but rather something that helps with backwards compatgibility.
Note that ksh93 is not compatible to the Bourne Shell. Platforms that
change /bin/sh fro the Bourne shell to something else just do not care about
EMail:email@example.com (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
firstname.lastname@example.org (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily