hi, On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 10:49:31AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > Joey Hess wrote: > > Unless, of course, it's a shell library that would like to be reasonably > > portable without being wholey crippled by lack features that have been > > in every shell worth the name for ages. > > I know that the debconf library used "local" (#242011) and I agree > that "local" is an example of a shell feature whose use we should > not be discouraging. That's why it is proposed that "local" be > added (alongside "echo -n") as an exception to the POSIX-only rule > expressed in 10.4. (Both bash and dash support "local".) If you > agree then it would be helpful to mention this in #294962. i too, have been making profuse usage of "local" in development of some /bin/sh code libraries that i've been doing lately, and think of it as an important feature. of course important feature does not necessarily equal policy amendment, but i'd like to know either way so my code doesn't break on systems where /bin/sh has been replaced from a minimalistic shell. sean --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature