Re: curly brackets a bashism?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:30:56PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > what it _really_ means is that /bin/sh should point to ash.
/bin/sh isn't even in alternatives; if ash is closer to basic sh than
bash, shouldn't it take over /bin/sh when installed?
(Of course, I always write my sh scripts for bash; there's no telling how
often I'll habitually use a bash feature.)
> > bashisms are fine, as long as you invoke bash.
>
> It's really not worth making /bin/bash the $SHELL just for curly brackets.
What're the costs? It's an incredibly useful notation, and it's not the
only one.
Of course, scripts intended to run under plain /bin/sh should be tested
with a shell that actually emulates it, which bash doesn't, but I don't
see much of a gain in going through the pain of writing a shell script
without any bash extensions that's intended for use on a Debian system,
which always has bash available.
(The only thing I can see is startup speed, but if that actually becomes
an issue then it's an optimization case, which is the exception.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: