Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
On Wed November 15 2006 15:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bruce Sass <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Since the file was used to provide both the bash builtin and the
> > standalone test, and -a is undocumented in the test manpage, it is
> > most likely a bash feature... why not use -e, which is documented
> > and available in dash, bash, and test?
> That's not the -a that we're talking about; that's the unary -a and
> we're talking about the binary -a. Use of -a as a binary operator is
> part of the XSI extension of POSIX/SUS and is definitely not specific
> to bash. I don't know enough about shell history to know who came up
> with it initially, but it would surprise me if it were bash.
Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement...
"I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and refused to
...and the fact that dash, bash, and test, all document their binary -a
operator as having the same behaviour.
Is their some Bourne style command interpreter other than dash in Debian
which offers to provide "sh"?