On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > Brian M. Carlson wrote: > > I would like to point out that the following are not POSIX features: > > local > > test -o > > test -a > Regarding "local", see #294962. I would like to see support for > "local" added to posh and "local" added as an exception to the > "POSIX-only" rule laid down in 10.4. Well, please note that posh is not the only shell that lacks support for local. IIRC, it also breaks down under one or more of dash and busybox sh. > See #267142 for a long discussion of the "POSIX-only" rule. > I support the idea of requiring #!/bin/sh scripts to be runnable on > posh. I don't. One might as well be able to expand "posh" as the "Pathologically Overstrict SHell"; while Policy's mandate of POSIX sh is important as a standard, the practical impact is nil once you start questioning those POSIX extensions that are supported by all of bash, ksh, dash, and busybox. There are many bugs of much greater practical importance that people could be working on instead. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature