Re: list of bashisms
Andy Mortimer <email@example.com> writes:
> > There has just been a long list of bugs against packages using `bashisms'
> > in their scripts, and I can certainly remember this issue coming up
> > before. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea
> > what features are available in the `original sh'.
On May 19, Mark Baker wrote
> Lots. The small handful of features that are in bash and not in ksh93 should
> not be used, but I can't see any reason to stay compatible with ten year old
> versions of sh when the posix standard isn't exactly new anymore.
If scripts require bash features, they should be written #!/bin/bash,
there's plenty of performance reasons to use something other than
bash for /bin/sh
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .