[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:36:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         So, what features do we settle on?  we can either standardize
>  on, well, a standard: POSIX/SUSv3, -- but there are things we use
>  that come from XSI. I guess we could standardize on SUSv3 +XSI
>  shells. Would still make local illegal:).  The issue here sems to be
>  that we are beginning to see people want to add in various and sundry
>  features which are not pure POSIX just because people have been using
>  it in their scripts.

I don't really like -a and -o (especially since they both exist in unary
versions too), but they are widely used, and since some people (hey MD!)
refuse to accept patches to remove them, I guess we're stuck with them.
With them also follows ( ).

As you mention, local isn't part of XSI either, but we could grandfather
that in just like echo -n behaviour (everything (?) echo -n
does can be achieved just as nicely with printf, but the amount of
scripts to fix is just too vast).

But SuSv3 + XSI (at least the XSI extensions for test -- I haven't
checked what other legacy crap it might bring) + local -- I can live
with that I guess, as long as we get rid of crap like [[ ]], <, >, -nt,
-ot, -ef, $RANDOM, $"...", read -e, declare, typeset, function (augh, I
cannot understand why bash even introduced that one), let, source
(again, completely pointless), pushd, popd, &>, {}...

I can probably come up with more, but this is a good start.

Regards: David
 /) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window           (\
//  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Beautiful hoar-frost       (/

Reply to: