Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
On Sun November 19 2006 14:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:43 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 11:30 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > > > Well, the goal was (in part) to catch scripts which use
> > > > > non-Posix features of echo and test; why are non-Posix
> > > > > features of ls not an issue?
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > Since I cannot think of a legitimate reason for anyone to use
> > > > ls in a shell script, I think it would add little value.
> > > > <unquote>
> > >
> > > Makes you wonder why it's in Posix.2 at all, huh? (Posix.2 is
> > > about scripts, not user interaction.)
> >
> > "The ls utility shall conform to the Base Definitions volume of
> > IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, Section 12.2, Utility Syntax Guidelines."
> >
> > It's a *utility*, not a shell function.
>
> Right. "test" and "echo" are also defined as utilities, not shell
> functions.
IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 Edition, section 2.14:
"The term "built-in" implies that the shell can execute the utility
directly and does not need to search for it. An implementation may
choose to make any utility a built-in..."
Reply to: