Re: Portable equivalent of "type -p"?
[You (Mark Baker)]
>On Mon, Feb 09, 1998 at 10:00:51PM -0500, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>> Which doesn't work with 'ash', of course.
>That's irrelevant. If a script doesn't work on ash but is posix compliant,
>that's a bug in ash. There's no policy requirement for scripts to work with
>ash, only with posix shells.
Well, you're literally right, but I wonder if you've
gandered Policy v184.108.40.206, Sec 3.3.4:
Restrict your script to POSIX features when possible so that it may use
/bin/sh as its interpreter. If your script works with ash, it's probably
POSIX compliant, but if you are in doubt, use /bin/bash.
I was simply pointing out that this recommendation in policy is not to be
taken too literally, and in fact 'ash' isn't very POSIXly correct after
all. Some developers---not you, clearly---might say "well, 'command -v'
doesn't work in ash, it must be non-POSIX.
[Please, next time, Mark, don't assume I'm a total idiot.]
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .